New Zealand v South Africa, 1st Test, Dunedin, 3rd day March 9, 2012

Kallis unconvinced by ball-tracking technology

  shares 37

A review in the penultimate over of the third day's play sparked another debate about the Decision Review System, with Jacques Kallis saying he "is not convinced by the predictive path" of the delivery shown by the ball-tracking technology. Doug Bracewell said members of the New Zealand squad were also "a bit iffy" about the accuracy of the DRS.

The incident under scrutiny was an lbw appeal off Bracewell against Jacques Rudolph which was upheld by the umpire Aleem Dar. After consultation with Kallis, Rudolph asked for a review and the pitch map showed the ball had landed just outside leg stump, resulting in Dar's decision being overturned and Rudolph surviving.

Bracewell was surprised by the decision as, to the naked eye, the ball appeared to have pitched on leg stump. "I thought it was pretty dead. I was going for the inswinger and trying to hit him on the pads and I think everyone thought it was out," Bracewell said. "I think they made a mistake [with the pitch map]. I don't see how the ball swinging back in can pitch outside leg and hit middle stump."

Kallis said he was prompted to persuade Rudolph to seek a review because he had faced Bracewell for most of the day and noticed that he occasionally delivered the ball from a slightly wider position. "I thought the one thing it might have been was that it could have pitched outside leg, coming from that angle," Kallis said. "Fortunately, I was right."

Kallis agreed that in asking for the review he brought to light two major concerns about the DRS. Is there a strategic way to use the system and is it performing its primary function, which is to minimise blatantly incorrect decisions? The answer to both, according to Kallis, is yes.

Because South Africa were in a dominant position at the time of the appeal, Kallis said they were able to ask for a review of a decision they might otherwise have accepted. "We had two reviews and I thought this [Rudolph] is a big batter so with those 50-50 calls I said to him, it's worth a call," Kallis said.

"That system is there to take out the shocker. Maybe with your first review, it's 50-50. Generally captains will say, 'Let's take a risk,' and then the second one you use a lot better. You probably take a little more of risk on that first one."

Kallis also stressed that the main function of the DRS was to eliminate obvious errors, because he remembered playing "in the old time when you got given a bad decision and it can change careers." He said that he "understands" there was a place for a review system, but remained sceptical on its exactness.

"How accurate it is, I don't know. Have decisions improved? I think they have but we have got to accept that there are probably one or two that, as cricketers, we will think 'I'm not so sure', but maybe that's an improvement on absolute shockers which is what you wanted to take out of the game. We are getting that right to a degree but I am not convinced how accurate it really is."

Like many of his Indian counterparts - who have opposed the DRS in its current form - Kallis said what bothers him and his team-mates is the legitimacy of the predictive path, because of height and line.

"Sometimes when it hits the batter and you think that's close and it ends up being a long way away or vice versa. I don't think there are any guys that are 100% sure that that thing is as accurate as they want to make it out to be. They keep saying it but I'm not so sure and I think 99% of cricketers will say that."
Jacques Kallis

On day two, South Africa reviewed an lbw appeal which had been turned down off Imran Tahir against Daniel Vettori. The ball-tracker showed that the delivery would have missed leg stump comfortably, which seemed unrealistic because of the amount of turn on it. "A lot of us looked at Dan's one yesterday and it was closer than what I thought the DRS had it," Kallis said. "It might not have been hitting or it might have been clipping leg, and the right decision was made in the end but [showing that it was] missing leg by that much surprised all of us."

It is instances like these, where the predicted path differs vastly from what is expected that has caused "plenty" of members of the South African team to be concerned about the system. "Sometimes when it hits the batter and you think that's close and it ends up being a long way away or vice versa," Kallis said. "I don't think there are any guys that are 100% sure that that thing is as accurate as they want to make it out to be. They keep saying it but I'm not so sure and I think 99% of cricketers will say that."

South Africa, including Kallis, accept the system as it stands but Kallis said he believes the players should be allowed to speak their minds about the DRS. "We are still allowed our opinion as cricketers and we are still allowed to say how we feel sometimes decisions go."

Kallis also had a suggestion to improve the system. "Maybe what they can do is have the review system that shows where it pitched and where it hits and let the third umpire make the call from there so you still give benefit of the doubt to the batter," he said, stressing that the need for the on-field umpires is still there despite the technology at the game's disposal.

"You don't want to take the umpires' job away but you do want the right decision. The predicted path, for me, is the worry. The Snickometer and Hot Spot and everything else is pretty decent."

Edited by Abhishek Purohit

Firdose Moonda is ESPNcricinfo's South Africa correspondent

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY harbour on | March 12, 2012, 11:41 GMT

    Some of the calls made in the Test in Hobart where NZ won, were head scratchers with the review system Against the Kiwis, final innings). In the last game in the Tri Series, there was a replay of the tracker showing the ball going over the stumps, yet in the side on shot, it clearly showed the ball on a downward track to the stumps ( it was a slower ball ). Clearly they have some work to convince the players and public of it's accuracy.

  • POSTED BY Philip_Gnana on | March 12, 2012, 9:55 GMT

    The issue here is the predictive path and not the caught behind, bat bat decisions. The Tram Lines I would have thought was elimentary. It so obvious to us viewers who can see both stumps and where the ball is pitched. Inserting the Tram Lines is no big deal. Why not have them drawn on the pitch itself? After all it was done at one stage. Let us not get excited here and the billion people in India (or most of them) say "we told you so". The predictive path is for the umpire to call. The decisive decisions regarding contact has to be there for all to use and just for one nation to veto. Philip Gnana, Surrey

  • POSTED BY StaalBurgher on | March 12, 2012, 9:55 GMT

    @meiyaps - The technology is not flawed, it just isn't perfect but it is less imperfect than umpires. The half-ball-in rule for overturning LBW decisions make up for any slight error in prediction. Whether the technology is perfect is irrelevant, the umpires aren't perfect. Overall however decision-making is improved when the system is used, including ball-tracking. Thus we should use it even while they are working to improve it. Neither did Kallis say we shouldn't use it, just that everyone is still unsure - he still wants it used.

  • POSTED BY YorkshirePudding on | March 12, 2012, 8:17 GMT

    @dalboy12, just one minor correction to your statement, it is virtual eye that is used by Australia and NZ for thier series, and is a rival to Hawkeye....In my estimation, the technology is being applied incorrectly, where by teams are trying thier luck against marginal decisions, not against howlers, or to try and buy a wicket. Sadly its use is a result of the increased commercialism in the sport, and TV companies in the past promoting this being without fault.

  • POSTED BY dalboy12 on | March 12, 2012, 4:50 GMT

    I've had doubts about the predictive tracking for a while, there was a case when NZ were playing in Aussie and Ryder got given out LBW, for a ball hitting leg stump. The problem was the close motion clearly showed off and middle stump visible behind Ryder at the point of contact and the ball was full and swinging down leg. I just saw no way that ball could have hit as squarely on leg-stump as hawkeye predicted. But using the pitch map and showing the point of contact of the ball in pad (and checking for inside edges) would still work out well.

  • POSTED BY Fast_Track_Bully on | March 12, 2012, 4:43 GMT

    I suspect BCCI's hand behind it. Lets blame BCCI for this.

  • POSTED BY bigwonder on | March 11, 2012, 23:26 GMT

    BCCI must be forcing Kallis and NZ team to say this. There is no other logical explanation for this.

  • POSTED BY CricketFanMN on | March 11, 2012, 15:50 GMT

    @Mitcher "Planes crash. we still fly"... same way, umpires make mistakes. so go on playing.

    Fans who were on a BCCI bashing spree... wake up and smell the coffee. Your opinion on DRS cannot be better than one of the best players - Jacques Kallis. (and in case you are itching to bring the Indian connection, I have news for you. Jacques Kallis is South African). And stop whining about how BCCI (rightly) opposes untested technology. Players around the world are making the same arguments BCCI was making while opposin DRS.

    These technologies are best tested in domestic tournaments, issues resolved and the appropriate level of technology support determined and provided to international umpires. Not rushed in at international level like the ICC is doing.

  • POSTED BY teo. on | March 11, 2012, 15:43 GMT

    Kallis is a very reserved guy, and it never has been in his nature to say something controversial. If he says it.. then it's because he really believes it.

  • POSTED BY spence1324 on | March 11, 2012, 13:42 GMT

    @maddy20 The hotspot system worked fine in england it was just victim crying from indians about the results that coursed a somewhat stir.

  • POSTED BY harbour on | March 12, 2012, 11:41 GMT

    Some of the calls made in the Test in Hobart where NZ won, were head scratchers with the review system Against the Kiwis, final innings). In the last game in the Tri Series, there was a replay of the tracker showing the ball going over the stumps, yet in the side on shot, it clearly showed the ball on a downward track to the stumps ( it was a slower ball ). Clearly they have some work to convince the players and public of it's accuracy.

  • POSTED BY Philip_Gnana on | March 12, 2012, 9:55 GMT

    The issue here is the predictive path and not the caught behind, bat bat decisions. The Tram Lines I would have thought was elimentary. It so obvious to us viewers who can see both stumps and where the ball is pitched. Inserting the Tram Lines is no big deal. Why not have them drawn on the pitch itself? After all it was done at one stage. Let us not get excited here and the billion people in India (or most of them) say "we told you so". The predictive path is for the umpire to call. The decisive decisions regarding contact has to be there for all to use and just for one nation to veto. Philip Gnana, Surrey

  • POSTED BY StaalBurgher on | March 12, 2012, 9:55 GMT

    @meiyaps - The technology is not flawed, it just isn't perfect but it is less imperfect than umpires. The half-ball-in rule for overturning LBW decisions make up for any slight error in prediction. Whether the technology is perfect is irrelevant, the umpires aren't perfect. Overall however decision-making is improved when the system is used, including ball-tracking. Thus we should use it even while they are working to improve it. Neither did Kallis say we shouldn't use it, just that everyone is still unsure - he still wants it used.

  • POSTED BY YorkshirePudding on | March 12, 2012, 8:17 GMT

    @dalboy12, just one minor correction to your statement, it is virtual eye that is used by Australia and NZ for thier series, and is a rival to Hawkeye....In my estimation, the technology is being applied incorrectly, where by teams are trying thier luck against marginal decisions, not against howlers, or to try and buy a wicket. Sadly its use is a result of the increased commercialism in the sport, and TV companies in the past promoting this being without fault.

  • POSTED BY dalboy12 on | March 12, 2012, 4:50 GMT

    I've had doubts about the predictive tracking for a while, there was a case when NZ were playing in Aussie and Ryder got given out LBW, for a ball hitting leg stump. The problem was the close motion clearly showed off and middle stump visible behind Ryder at the point of contact and the ball was full and swinging down leg. I just saw no way that ball could have hit as squarely on leg-stump as hawkeye predicted. But using the pitch map and showing the point of contact of the ball in pad (and checking for inside edges) would still work out well.

  • POSTED BY Fast_Track_Bully on | March 12, 2012, 4:43 GMT

    I suspect BCCI's hand behind it. Lets blame BCCI for this.

  • POSTED BY bigwonder on | March 11, 2012, 23:26 GMT

    BCCI must be forcing Kallis and NZ team to say this. There is no other logical explanation for this.

  • POSTED BY CricketFanMN on | March 11, 2012, 15:50 GMT

    @Mitcher "Planes crash. we still fly"... same way, umpires make mistakes. so go on playing.

    Fans who were on a BCCI bashing spree... wake up and smell the coffee. Your opinion on DRS cannot be better than one of the best players - Jacques Kallis. (and in case you are itching to bring the Indian connection, I have news for you. Jacques Kallis is South African). And stop whining about how BCCI (rightly) opposes untested technology. Players around the world are making the same arguments BCCI was making while opposin DRS.

    These technologies are best tested in domestic tournaments, issues resolved and the appropriate level of technology support determined and provided to international umpires. Not rushed in at international level like the ICC is doing.

  • POSTED BY teo. on | March 11, 2012, 15:43 GMT

    Kallis is a very reserved guy, and it never has been in his nature to say something controversial. If he says it.. then it's because he really believes it.

  • POSTED BY spence1324 on | March 11, 2012, 13:42 GMT

    @maddy20 The hotspot system worked fine in england it was just victim crying from indians about the results that coursed a somewhat stir.

  • POSTED BY tusharkardile on | March 11, 2012, 12:34 GMT

    so, is BCCI forcing Kallis and Bracewell to make these kind of statements?

  • POSTED BY McGorium on | March 11, 2012, 7:10 GMT

    @ Mitcher: Planes go through a rigorous set of tests imposed by the governing body (regulator such as FCC) before they are allowed to fly. This is over and above the manufacturers own tests. If you are willing to fly any box with wings that someone builds, I have a $20,000 plane to sell to you. Ditto with medicines. Are you willing to pop a pill that some quack came up with, without a double-blind clinical trial? Who has tested Virtual Eye other than the manufacturers? Hardly anyone. ICC claims that such tests are under way (recencly richardson made a statement to that effect). So, for the past 1.5 yrs, virtual eye has had as much review for efficacy as leech therapy did in the middle ages.

  • POSTED BY gdalvi on | March 10, 2012, 9:06 GMT

    As j.rock says, tv replays are more than sufficient to eliminate howlers. Why bring extra sensory tech like infra red cameras to the game? If u need that tech to resolve a decision, then it is not a howler at all, is it? The other problem is why only 1-2 reviews? Aren't all decisions just as important? Even with the system, a team can many wrong decisions, just because they exhausted their 1-2 chances, may be because Tech was wrong or 3 rd ump made mistake. This leaves us with a system that is not only expansive but also inhérent l'y deficient. Time to go back and reteint.

  • POSTED BY Mitcher on | March 10, 2012, 9:04 GMT

    @maddy: planes crash. We still fly.

  • POSTED BY nitinbhor on | March 10, 2012, 7:10 GMT

    Take a case when the batsman hits the ball in the middle of his bat.

    Applying some geometry and physics rules, I fail to understand how a fairly rigid spherical object ( cricket ball ) when hits a fairly flat surface ( cricket bat ) in the middle, can leave an impression equivalent to diameter of the cricket ball. Whoever ( like me ) has bowled with a bit dusty or wet rubber ball against a wall, must have seen the impression of the ball on the wall to be of smaller diameter, certainly not to the size of the diameter of the ball. Sometimes the same impressions can even be seen on the bats. A leather ball, I think is way too rigid to get pressed and to leave an impression that big. Even if we consider hotspot tracks the heat generated by the impact, how is it that it spreads equally in all directions and takes shape of a complete circle ? Agreeing ball skids a bit on the flat surface, it certainly can not generate impression of that shape.

    Same goes with the technology used in Tennis.

  • POSTED BY maddy20 on | March 10, 2012, 5:45 GMT

    The components of DRS are hawkeye and hotspot. Hotspot is worthless(as evident from England tour) and hawkeye is dubious. So now what is it ye' all said about Hawkeye again when India rejected it? All these technologies need to be refined before they are put to use. Imagine how catastrophic it would have been if the wright brothers sold airplanes to commercial airliners without mastering them first!

  • POSTED BY JohnnyRook on | March 10, 2012, 4:50 GMT

    Tell me mates, which shocker can't be eliminated with a simple TV replay. Why do we need expensive Hawkeye hotspot when they are not even independent tested as yet. I am not saying banish them forever. I am merely saying, do a thorough independent test and start using it if price is worth it. Till then use a simple TV reply to avoid howlers.

  • POSTED BY jmcilhinney on | March 10, 2012, 3:07 GMT

    "I predict that the ball was going to go here and DRS predicted that it was going to go there so DRS must be wrong". Typical human arrogance. How many LBW appeals get turned down in a Test match? The players obviously thought that they were out or they wouldn't have appealed so players predictive abilities are hardly perfect. @rjansen, I've been saying the same thing for some time. It's hard to believe that they wouldn't have done that to test the system, although they could allay a lot of suspicion by actually saying so. Anyway, the ICC currently has exhaustive independent testing under way so we will know definitively after that. I certainly don't think it is perfect but then umpires aren't either and players certainly aren't. The problem is that the system was introduced to prevent howlers and we are now expecting it to be correct to the millimetre. The "umpire's call" on LBWs for where the ball pitches, strikes the batsman and would have hit the stumps is admission of that fact.

  • POSTED BY Buggsy on | March 10, 2012, 2:28 GMT

    While I'd be happy to remove Hawkeye I still think we need the DRS. The umpires are pretty darned good at determining whether or not the ball was actually hitting the stumps, but inside edges can easily be eliminated with the DRS.

  • POSTED BY SudeepSharma_Nepal on | March 10, 2012, 2:02 GMT

    Cricketers have had their say about this dubious system, cricket boards have had their stands but what also matters so much is the audience,how they really want it to be, after all it is audience who watch the game and the followers who live for it ,so this has not to be overlooked.

  • POSTED BY RogerC on | March 10, 2012, 1:55 GMT

    What really annoys me is the cost of DRS. Nearly 60,000 dollars for each day of a match for this kind of half-baked technology is criminal. In many test matches, this sum is more than the total gate collection.

  • POSTED BY Malediction on | March 10, 2012, 1:53 GMT

    Someone's gut feeling of "I'm not so sure" needs to be put in context. The prediction uses mathematical physics that has been known for well over 150 years. There is no voodoo here. The IS the possibility for user error, such as the pitch map not being properly aligned with the stumps etc. But to infer that the prediction is a black art is nonsense. If the program has enough camera frames to work with, the prediction of the ball's path is almost a no-brainer. I could do it with a pencil and some paper (albeit far more slowly than a computer program).

  • POSTED BY Mitcher on | March 10, 2012, 1:38 GMT

    @indianpunter: hello sir meet my friend the LBW law. Technology or no technology, cricket involves prediction for critical decisions. Nice try anyway.

  • POSTED BY FreddyForPrimeMinister on | March 10, 2012, 1:19 GMT

    I think people (include the mighty Jacques!) are slightly missing the point. When it comes to LBWs, Hawkeye doesn't need to be 100% accurate as it is only used to overturn an umpire's decision if MORE THAN half the width of a ball is hitting/missing the stumps. As such, if an umpire gives the benefit of the doubt to a batsman in a not out verdict which is then appealed by the fielding side, even if Hawkeye shows the ball to be clipping the stumps, the benefit of the doubt is retained by the decision REMAINING with the onfield umpire. The only argument I have with the DRS is that in such cases as this I don't think the fielding side should lose a review as arguably they were correct in appealing as the ball was shown by Hawkeye to be clipping the stumps - and if the umpire had adjudged it out, any batsmen's appeal would have been dismissed. Hawkeye therefore addresses the more obvious mistakes - close calls effectively remain with the umpire.

  • POSTED BY lokesh.agarwal on | March 10, 2012, 1:17 GMT

    @indianpunter Lawn Tennis uses Hawk eye to predict the ball's trajectory.... to ascertain where the ball landed.. even though they have actual camera footage. They dont trust camera positions to be accurate and the reliance on missing critical frames at the point of impact. Having said that, I do agree that predictive paths should be taken out, the onfield or third umpire should make the decision based on replays till the point of contact. But at the same time, one can't afford to spend too much on for every such appeal. Lots of tradeoffs, no perfect solution (yet).....

  • POSTED BY brittop on | March 9, 2012, 23:45 GMT

    Why do people think their predictive ability is better than Hawkeye etc? Maybe what we've all held as "sacred truths" like "I don't see how the ball swinging back in can pitch outside leg and hit middle stump" are wrong.

  • POSTED BY brittop on | March 9, 2012, 23:32 GMT

    @indianpunter: umpires use prediction for LBWs!

  • POSTED BY johnathonjosephs on | March 9, 2012, 21:52 GMT

    Sorry quite ridiculous if you ask me. The part that is debatable about UDRS is the predicted path. Everything up until there is pure fact. Therefore, the ball MARGINALLY pitched outside off and thus the BALL WAS PITCHED OUTSIDE OFF. For those who do not understand science, they can argue, but it is a FACT that the ball pitched at that spot unless the equipments were wrongly calibrated

  • POSTED BY gkannuchamy on | March 9, 2012, 18:49 GMT

    //Like many of his Indian counterparts - who have opposed the DRS in its current form - Kallis said what bothers him and his team-mates is the legitimacy of the predictive path, because of height and line.//

    England too had raised some reservations against DRS in the series against Pakistan recently. ICC cannot send a half-baked recipes down the throats of Indians. It's unfair.

  • POSTED BY meiyaps on | March 9, 2012, 16:33 GMT

    @StaalBurgher: I agree Jacques has put it very well. But, what I don't agree with is why India is expected to accept flawed technology. I agree the technology is way better than the umpires, but, it is possible for us to accept human mistakes while it is quite shocking to see technology make some obvious mistakes. If you look at the leagues in the US (MLB, NBA, NFL), they will not accept technology unless it is close to foolproof, and DRS is far from being close to foolproof.

  • POSTED BY CricEshwar on | March 9, 2012, 15:28 GMT

    DRS has to be used. George Lucas did not wait forever to make the first SW trilogy.

  • POSTED BY Tartanspringbok on | March 9, 2012, 15:13 GMT

    DRS is much better than no DRS. And remember, there is some leeway in the system. If the ball was going to hit the stumps (according to the projected path) and is going to hit with 100% of the ball, then the decision is made accordingly. If 50% or less is projected to hit the stumps the on-field call remains. I think that is fair. The problem is now that every decent or important batsmen always review LBW decisions in the hope its a no ball or too high. The idea of DRS was to catch things like edges before pad or caught behind. They should probably remove the option of a review for LBW unless the batsmen is 100% sure he knicked it first.

  • POSTED BY indianpunter on | March 9, 2012, 15:10 GMT

    i have been saying the same thing for a long time. take out the predictive path. use the DRS only till point of impact. for heavens sake !! which game in the world uses predictions for critical decision making ???

  • POSTED BY rjansen on | March 9, 2012, 14:53 GMT

    Look, it is pretty clear.

    You can test it. VERY easily.All you do is: 1) Bowl balls without a batsman 2) Then you give the system only part of the data (up to the point it might have hit the pads) 3) Let the system predict, and compare with what really happened.

    I'm actually pretty sure they have already done that, which is why they claim it is accurate.

    In this case Kallis (and other cricketers not trusting the DRS) are a bit blinded by the tradition and the way they have always done things.

  • POSTED BY jgoogly on | March 9, 2012, 13:20 GMT

    DRS is better than no DRS at all. Most of the errors of umpires could be eliminated but a few might still happen and Technology could be improved as we advance.

  • POSTED BY StaalBurgher on | March 9, 2012, 13:19 GMT

    Very well said Jacques. This is one of the few times I have actually seen the media report on a balanced opinion regarding the review system. Kallis' opinion is pragmatic and realistic, devoid of hardline ideology like some others. Is it perfect? No. Is it helping the game? Yes. Can it be better? Yes. It is absolutely shocking that India are preventing the implementation of this system as it stands (perfect or not, because umpires definitely are a far cry from perfect) and then work to improve it.

  • POSTED BY kabe_ag7 on | March 9, 2012, 12:52 GMT

    I agree with Kallis' suggestion that things that can be judged much more objectively like 'where the ball pitched' and 'where it hit the batsman' should be resolved by the DRS and the rest of the decision should be left to the umpire's subjective evaluation and we should move on from there irrespective of what the predictive part has to say. Players like Kallis now showing their skepticism about predictive technology is going to lend more respect to BCCI's position.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY kabe_ag7 on | March 9, 2012, 12:52 GMT

    I agree with Kallis' suggestion that things that can be judged much more objectively like 'where the ball pitched' and 'where it hit the batsman' should be resolved by the DRS and the rest of the decision should be left to the umpire's subjective evaluation and we should move on from there irrespective of what the predictive part has to say. Players like Kallis now showing their skepticism about predictive technology is going to lend more respect to BCCI's position.

  • POSTED BY StaalBurgher on | March 9, 2012, 13:19 GMT

    Very well said Jacques. This is one of the few times I have actually seen the media report on a balanced opinion regarding the review system. Kallis' opinion is pragmatic and realistic, devoid of hardline ideology like some others. Is it perfect? No. Is it helping the game? Yes. Can it be better? Yes. It is absolutely shocking that India are preventing the implementation of this system as it stands (perfect or not, because umpires definitely are a far cry from perfect) and then work to improve it.

  • POSTED BY jgoogly on | March 9, 2012, 13:20 GMT

    DRS is better than no DRS at all. Most of the errors of umpires could be eliminated but a few might still happen and Technology could be improved as we advance.

  • POSTED BY rjansen on | March 9, 2012, 14:53 GMT

    Look, it is pretty clear.

    You can test it. VERY easily.All you do is: 1) Bowl balls without a batsman 2) Then you give the system only part of the data (up to the point it might have hit the pads) 3) Let the system predict, and compare with what really happened.

    I'm actually pretty sure they have already done that, which is why they claim it is accurate.

    In this case Kallis (and other cricketers not trusting the DRS) are a bit blinded by the tradition and the way they have always done things.

  • POSTED BY indianpunter on | March 9, 2012, 15:10 GMT

    i have been saying the same thing for a long time. take out the predictive path. use the DRS only till point of impact. for heavens sake !! which game in the world uses predictions for critical decision making ???

  • POSTED BY Tartanspringbok on | March 9, 2012, 15:13 GMT

    DRS is much better than no DRS. And remember, there is some leeway in the system. If the ball was going to hit the stumps (according to the projected path) and is going to hit with 100% of the ball, then the decision is made accordingly. If 50% or less is projected to hit the stumps the on-field call remains. I think that is fair. The problem is now that every decent or important batsmen always review LBW decisions in the hope its a no ball or too high. The idea of DRS was to catch things like edges before pad or caught behind. They should probably remove the option of a review for LBW unless the batsmen is 100% sure he knicked it first.

  • POSTED BY CricEshwar on | March 9, 2012, 15:28 GMT

    DRS has to be used. George Lucas did not wait forever to make the first SW trilogy.

  • POSTED BY meiyaps on | March 9, 2012, 16:33 GMT

    @StaalBurgher: I agree Jacques has put it very well. But, what I don't agree with is why India is expected to accept flawed technology. I agree the technology is way better than the umpires, but, it is possible for us to accept human mistakes while it is quite shocking to see technology make some obvious mistakes. If you look at the leagues in the US (MLB, NBA, NFL), they will not accept technology unless it is close to foolproof, and DRS is far from being close to foolproof.

  • POSTED BY gkannuchamy on | March 9, 2012, 18:49 GMT

    //Like many of his Indian counterparts - who have opposed the DRS in its current form - Kallis said what bothers him and his team-mates is the legitimacy of the predictive path, because of height and line.//

    England too had raised some reservations against DRS in the series against Pakistan recently. ICC cannot send a half-baked recipes down the throats of Indians. It's unfair.

  • POSTED BY johnathonjosephs on | March 9, 2012, 21:52 GMT

    Sorry quite ridiculous if you ask me. The part that is debatable about UDRS is the predicted path. Everything up until there is pure fact. Therefore, the ball MARGINALLY pitched outside off and thus the BALL WAS PITCHED OUTSIDE OFF. For those who do not understand science, they can argue, but it is a FACT that the ball pitched at that spot unless the equipments were wrongly calibrated