New Zealand v South Africa, 2nd Test, Hamilton March 17, 2012

Umpires should overrule Virtual Eye errors - inventor

114

Ian Taylor, the founder of the ball-tracking system, Virtual Eye, has called upon technicians and umpires to "fess up" and overrule DRS technology if they conclude that the system might have become unreliable because of unavailable data.

Taylor's call for umpires to use their discretionary powers to overrule technology followed a malfunction of the ball-tracking technology during the Hamilton Test between New Zealand and South Africa when data was collected from only two of the four cameras used to determine DRS decisions.

The failure by technicians and umpires to admit the shortcomings immediately will further embarrass the ICC, which continues to champion the system against resistance, particularly from India, and which has arranged for Cambridge University to run independent tests into its accuracy.

The latest debate broke out following the dismissal of the New Zealand batsman, Ross Taylor, on the second day of the second Test.

Taylor was given out lbw by umpire Billy Doctrove off the bowling of Dale Steyn late on the second day. The delivery was reverse-swinging and struck Taylor on the full. Ball-tracking predicted it would have hit middle and leg, which would have required a significant and unnatural angle change. In fact, after Virtual Eye was recalibrated, the ball would have only shaved leg stump. Doctrove's decision would still have been upheld by the television umpire, Aleem Dar, but the difference was still striking.

Ian Taylor, shaken by criticism of the system for the second successive Test, called a media conference in Hamilton at which he urged umpires to use the discretionary powers given to them to overrule DRS technology if they knew that complete data was not available or even if they felt strongly about a particular decision.

Virtual Eye's inventor said that the system had erred because after 6pm the ball-tracking cameras were not able to pick as much data up as they were earlier in the day when the light was brighter. In the case of Ross Taylor's dismissal, of the four cameras at the ground, one was facing direct sunlight, so it did not get the image, and another lost the ball, meaning that the data calculated for the predictive path was only obtained from two cameras.

In such a situation, Taylor simply wants his team to press the button that says "insufficient data available" and leave the umpire to take the final call on the dismissal. The implication was that they had not done this. "I said I would fess up if we got it wrong and we've got it wrong this time," Taylor said.

Ball-tracking technology came under the microscope during the first Test in Dunedin when both Jacques Kallis and Doug Bracewell said their respective camps questioned the legitimacy of the system. Kallis comment that "99% of cricketers" will probably agree that they don't believe ball-tracking is as accurate as the makers say it stung Taylor particularly hard.

He was close to pulling out of the series but was convinced to stay on after crisis talks with Sky Television, New Zealand Cricket and the ICC's general manager of cricket, Dave Richardson. "I really wish we had pulled it from the series then the players would have to argue with their boards whether they want to have it or not," Taylor said in Hamilton.

Meanwhile, Ross Taylor said he had no qualms about the system at all. "It's there for both teams and the umpire gave me out and the DRS gave me out as well," he said. When asked if it made a difference that Ian Taylor revealed that ball-tracking got it wrong, Taylor was unfussed.

"I'd rather you not have told me really," he said. "It's there. Umpires make the right decisions and umpires make a bad decision, I guess it's the same as the DRS."

Edited by David Hopps

Firdose Moonda is ESPNcricinfo's South Africa correspondent

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • venky_singapore on March 20, 2012, 10:30 GMT

    Basic question - Why does no one object to using replays for Run out / No ball / Bump ball catch etc decisions? Because these are simply replays of what ACTUALLY happened, and do not require the Technology to make predictive judgements on what MAY HAVE happened! The same logic can apply to using Hawkeye / Hotspot etc to detect thin edges, bat-pad decisions, ball pitching outside leg etc decisions, and so all the above can be subject to DRS without any controversy...

    The problem comes in when we ask technology to make predictive judgements, which will always be prone to errors and cannot be proven accurate in a real match situation. So it makes good sense to leave these to the On-field Umpires' judgement - let them decide how much the ball was swinging, whether it would have hit the stumps, how high it may have bounced etc... the moment we let technology step in here we have dramas galore!!

  • on March 19, 2012, 17:20 GMT

    @mrmonty. The classic question, I agree with you, remains: Who will DRS the DRS ad infinitum. :-))

  • StoneRose on March 19, 2012, 16:11 GMT

    Taylor gives a good suggestion here. The truth is that UDRS improves the number of correct decisions, period. That's good for the game. Football is being ruined by not adapting technology, cricket doesn't want to fall foul from stopping embracing it.

  • reb1 on March 19, 2012, 13:15 GMT

    For the general information of readers, please list any sports that use predictive technology in refereeing/umpiring (this does not include ball-tracking).

  • on March 19, 2012, 13:15 GMT

    There was no way that ball was hitting middle and leg leave alone hitting leg... looks like this leaves a very big margin for error. Not good for the game

  • satish619chandar on March 19, 2012, 11:47 GMT

    DRS only for eliminating howlers.. Can't howler eliminated without these expensive technological stuffs? 80-90% accuracy can be obtained simply by using normal replays with pitch map.. Pure howler can easily be eliminated by these ways.. For LBW, hitting outside line, Pitched outside leg and inside edge are the howlers.. Can't it be eliminated by replays? Unless you see good deflection or hear concrete sound through replays, don't overrule any decision.. Any howler can be easily found out like this.. Do we need to necessarily spend more than 5000$ for eliminating howlers when we can get it for free?

  • brittop on March 19, 2012, 10:00 GMT

    @SamRoy: In theory it may be good to use it only for "howlers", but how would this work? The on-field umpire gave the decision, so he doesn't think it's a howler. So the third umpire would have to check for himself. He could do this easily if the decision is out, as there would be a natural break in the game, but what about for not outs? The game have to stop after every appeal, in case it's a howler. If not, then the third umpire would have to try and get the decision made before the next ball was bowled, in which case the fielding side would slow the game down anyway.

  • pitch_curator on March 19, 2012, 9:34 GMT

    @ Brittop -- I have given enough reasons why the UDRS is a flop in my post. A technology that was supposed to eliminate errors by the umpires is now asking the umpires to eliminate its errors. Can anything get more hilarious than this? Have they even tested this thing thoroughly? And it is not me who started assigning spurious motives to the people backing UDRS. It is these very people who were accusing the BCCI of underhand motives when they opposed the UDRS in the series against England. The Nasser Hussains and David Lloyds of the world who were backing the UDRS as if it is the greatest technology ever now have egg on their face. Today they are saying two of the cameras were not working. Tomorrow they will say the cameraman was not working... :)

  • brittop on March 19, 2012, 9:25 GMT

    @samincolumbia: Your logic is absurd!! DRS was brought in to increase the accuracy of decision making. If it improves that accuracy from 95% to 99% why wouldn't you use it?

  • on March 19, 2012, 8:10 GMT

    One fundamental problem that I have always been bugged with is that the curve of swinging ball is never factored in. It is always taken as a straight line.

  • venky_singapore on March 20, 2012, 10:30 GMT

    Basic question - Why does no one object to using replays for Run out / No ball / Bump ball catch etc decisions? Because these are simply replays of what ACTUALLY happened, and do not require the Technology to make predictive judgements on what MAY HAVE happened! The same logic can apply to using Hawkeye / Hotspot etc to detect thin edges, bat-pad decisions, ball pitching outside leg etc decisions, and so all the above can be subject to DRS without any controversy...

    The problem comes in when we ask technology to make predictive judgements, which will always be prone to errors and cannot be proven accurate in a real match situation. So it makes good sense to leave these to the On-field Umpires' judgement - let them decide how much the ball was swinging, whether it would have hit the stumps, how high it may have bounced etc... the moment we let technology step in here we have dramas galore!!

  • on March 19, 2012, 17:20 GMT

    @mrmonty. The classic question, I agree with you, remains: Who will DRS the DRS ad infinitum. :-))

  • StoneRose on March 19, 2012, 16:11 GMT

    Taylor gives a good suggestion here. The truth is that UDRS improves the number of correct decisions, period. That's good for the game. Football is being ruined by not adapting technology, cricket doesn't want to fall foul from stopping embracing it.

  • reb1 on March 19, 2012, 13:15 GMT

    For the general information of readers, please list any sports that use predictive technology in refereeing/umpiring (this does not include ball-tracking).

  • on March 19, 2012, 13:15 GMT

    There was no way that ball was hitting middle and leg leave alone hitting leg... looks like this leaves a very big margin for error. Not good for the game

  • satish619chandar on March 19, 2012, 11:47 GMT

    DRS only for eliminating howlers.. Can't howler eliminated without these expensive technological stuffs? 80-90% accuracy can be obtained simply by using normal replays with pitch map.. Pure howler can easily be eliminated by these ways.. For LBW, hitting outside line, Pitched outside leg and inside edge are the howlers.. Can't it be eliminated by replays? Unless you see good deflection or hear concrete sound through replays, don't overrule any decision.. Any howler can be easily found out like this.. Do we need to necessarily spend more than 5000$ for eliminating howlers when we can get it for free?

  • brittop on March 19, 2012, 10:00 GMT

    @SamRoy: In theory it may be good to use it only for "howlers", but how would this work? The on-field umpire gave the decision, so he doesn't think it's a howler. So the third umpire would have to check for himself. He could do this easily if the decision is out, as there would be a natural break in the game, but what about for not outs? The game have to stop after every appeal, in case it's a howler. If not, then the third umpire would have to try and get the decision made before the next ball was bowled, in which case the fielding side would slow the game down anyway.

  • pitch_curator on March 19, 2012, 9:34 GMT

    @ Brittop -- I have given enough reasons why the UDRS is a flop in my post. A technology that was supposed to eliminate errors by the umpires is now asking the umpires to eliminate its errors. Can anything get more hilarious than this? Have they even tested this thing thoroughly? And it is not me who started assigning spurious motives to the people backing UDRS. It is these very people who were accusing the BCCI of underhand motives when they opposed the UDRS in the series against England. The Nasser Hussains and David Lloyds of the world who were backing the UDRS as if it is the greatest technology ever now have egg on their face. Today they are saying two of the cameras were not working. Tomorrow they will say the cameraman was not working... :)

  • brittop on March 19, 2012, 9:25 GMT

    @samincolumbia: Your logic is absurd!! DRS was brought in to increase the accuracy of decision making. If it improves that accuracy from 95% to 99% why wouldn't you use it?

  • on March 19, 2012, 8:10 GMT

    One fundamental problem that I have always been bugged with is that the curve of swinging ball is never factored in. It is always taken as a straight line.

  • I.RAGHURAM on March 19, 2012, 6:53 GMT

    I appreciate, the honesty of Mr. Ian Taylor the founder of Virtual Eye by agreeing that it is not accurate and can give inaccurate predictions due to various reasons like the quality of natural light / if the camera is directly facing the sunlight, etc. The inventor himself has agreed that the technology is not 100% accurate and that on field umpires should be given the authority to take their own decision in case of technology failure. NOW BLAME BCCI FOR THE SUNLIGHT COMING DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA. If the onfield umpire has to take the final decision, why spend valuable money on inaccurate technology ?????

  • on March 19, 2012, 5:37 GMT

    At least the bugs are being found - which is a step in the right direction and you can say that it is fair to both teams, but then again both teams don't have the same 'calls'

    Like in rugby you can only ask that the ref is fair to both teams (even if he makes bad calls, it is a bad call to each team)... People should not condemn DRS yet, however if it has not been fixed in a year or 2 then we should be asking questions!

  • SamRoy on March 19, 2012, 4:57 GMT

    The biggest problem with the current UDRS is giving captain's the right to question umpire's decision. UDRS was always meant to remove howlers from the game (LBW's given of inside-edges, no knicks given out, knicks given not out, LBW's given which were comfortably missing the stumps and plumb LBW's not given). It was never meant to remove 50-50 decisions on LBWs (part of the ball clipping the stumps). Trouble is captain's use it to review 50-50 decisions. Then they exhaust their reviews and then a howler comes along and there are no more reviews left. That's why the UDRS should be at the discretion of the third umpire and not the playing captains who should intervene play only when a howler has been made.

  • samincolumbia on March 19, 2012, 4:33 GMT

    @Pan - Your logic is absurd!! The purpose of DRS was to remove all ambiguity and make a decision 100% correct. If there is a margin of error which can lead to a wrong decision, then why bother with such a defective technology for technology's sake and leave it at the hands of the umpires as has been done until now!! What's the use of adopting technology that is unreliable to aid/replace umpires that are equally unreliable?

  • SyBorgg71 on March 19, 2012, 3:02 GMT

    @Lemm. Suggestion :- When we see the VE calculating the predictive path on TV the recorded path is in blue and the predicted path is in red. Why not have the predicted path be green in colour for for situations where there is enough data to be 95 - 100% correct, amber for 75%-95%, red for 50%-75% and no predictive path at all if less than 50%. That way all who view it will know how much the predictive path can/may be trusted rather than instinct/gut feel. Anything less than 50% is purely speculative so therefor should not be shown. In the case of Ross Taylor we would have seen the ball hit his pads and no more, then it would be up to the umpires (any 1 of the 4 will do) to make a ruling based on what he sees.

  • maddy20 on March 19, 2012, 0:09 GMT

    This is hilarious stuff. Technology is there to rectify umpiring errors. Now this guy says umpires should rectify technology's errors. Now who is rectifying whose errors here? Good move by India to have Cambridge University test it. The results will be there for all to see!

  • on March 18, 2012, 20:21 GMT

    Even if Virtual Eye or Hawkeye or any such system is 95% accurate, at least it is 95% accurate for both sides! No system is foolproof, but DRS has helped remove the blatant shocking decisions that the umpires were making i.e. bat/pad lbw decisions, bat/pad catches etc. Personally I think each time a decision gets reviewed, for me the fan watching on TV, it is an exciting moment in the game and adds to the drama, as you wait to see is the on-field umpire correct, will the decision change... etc. Cricket has to move forward with technology. If tennis can do it, surely cricket should too!

  • Lemm on March 18, 2012, 19:16 GMT

    Let me declare my position. I am that Ian Taylor! Some observations. We have tested radar thoroughly and have a plan to continue the development. However, until the ICC has a set policy on how the system will be funded and there is a set policy for its use we have decided not to spend any more on the R&D. The ICC does not contribute at all to the cost of the technology and the broadcasters who do are happy with it. My comments on the Rudolf decision a week earlier were actually based on the fact that we run an open door policy for players and umpires to view any decision. Bracewell did not take up that offer. If he had he would have seen the decision was correct. The number of instances where we call insufficient data are rare. Once in 2 years in Australia and this would have been the second time ever in NZ. Finally, I don't make a practice of comparing VE with Hawkeye other than to note that the Indians, who certainly don't trust the technology, use Hawkeye.

  • MB89 on March 18, 2012, 17:10 GMT

    As Lemm says the final judge should be the umpire,as they can assess things that the camera system does not take into account. I'm surprised that radar is not incorporated into the system as well as a 3-d camera system (how well are these calibrated?), as that may improve the accuracy of measurements and cope with poor lighting conditions. Radar is already at the ground to measure ball speed; why not use it. I'm told you should get a precision of 5mm for the position of the ball from radar; we're not told what the precision of each fix is for the ball from the camera system. What we also do not see a graphic providing a measure of the precision of a prediction. A prediction of the position of the ball when it reaches the stumps for a spinner's delivery hitting the batsman on the front foot is significantly less accurate than any other delivery. The umpires deal with the same issue.

  • on March 18, 2012, 15:28 GMT

    Ross Taylor is a true giant of the game.

  • Vindaliew on March 18, 2012, 14:07 GMT

    My respect for Ross Taylor just increased significantly. This man doesn't look for excuses, he just plays his best. Error, whether human or machine, has always been part of cricket, and if the machine fails, there's no reason why the human discretion can't take responsibility for the decision like it had always done before.

  • on March 18, 2012, 12:35 GMT

    @mrmonty. The classic question, I agree with you, remains: Who will DRS the DRS ad infinitum. :-))

  • on March 18, 2012, 12:30 GMT

    I posted a comment pointing out Virtual Eye and Hawkeye are completely different. Funny how my comment has been removed. Google Hawkeye and read for yourself.

    Hawkeye uses up to 8 cameras, Virtual Eye (from what I know) uses 4. Hawkeye is used by the ATP and clearly has had less or virtually no issues. Why not just use Hawkeye, is it a cost thing?

    On the DRS debate, how many umpires decisions are overturned each game against how many bad ball tracking decisions?

  • PanGlupek on March 18, 2012, 11:47 GMT

    Anyone saying anything along the lines of "if it's not 100% foolproof, it shouldn't be there" is living by strange ideals: Are cars100% reliable? No, and the people who drive them (compare to a 3rd umpire) certainly aren't. How many people would have died if we waited for brain surgery (and brain surgeons - again, compare to a 3rd umpire) to be 100% trustworthy? When you walk to work/school/dole office in the morning, are you 100% certain your shoelace won't come undone?

  • on March 18, 2012, 11:29 GMT

    I'm puzzled that the system does not say "insufficient data, no comment".

  • SuperSharky on March 18, 2012, 11:07 GMT

    Cricket (and most other sport) - future are heading in the right direction with technology in search for fairness. Maybe not yet 100%, but we've already improved since the past and we're getting there. Personally I still feels that the technology data should only be a 2nd opinion for the umpire. The umpire should still have to have the final say whether he wants to change his decision or not.

  • mrmonty on March 18, 2012, 10:26 GMT

    Here is my solution. Let's have someone invent (DRS)^2, which will review the decisions of DRS.

  • Lemm on March 18, 2012, 9:49 GMT

    We, Virtual Eye, have always argued that the final judge in cricket should be an umpire. Technology is never a 100% - but personally I think it has made a positive difference in cricket. There is no financial gain for us. No one pays for DRS. We are more than happy to deliver ball tracking to our client, the broadcaster, and leave the umpires to do what the ICC puts them there to do. If Kallis was correct, and 99% of players don't want it, why force it on them. They are the ones who matter - the decisions umpires make affect them, no one else. For the record, in 3 months of cricket in Australia this year and 2 months in NZ only two DRS decisions were questioned. We got this one wrong but if we had taken the option to advise the 3rd umpire that we did not have enough data - he would have been able to make his call using all of the other technology available. He should have to ask one question only. Knowing what I know now - would I have made a different decision if I was in the middle!

  • on March 18, 2012, 9:47 GMT

    More decisions are correct when DRS is used. But whatever method is used COMMON SENSE should prevail. More decisions correct = bettrer method to me..but don't throw out common sense.

  • Clyde on March 18, 2012, 9:22 GMT

    It seems obvious to me that the relevant umpire is the person or thing that gives the batsman out. There is nothing wrong with the umpire's using technology. The quality of decision-making can come only over the long term, during which umpires' decisions are observed, particularly by players. I don't believe any computer ball-tracking system is ever going to be as revered as a Dickie Bird, for example.

  • kichinho on March 18, 2012, 9:06 GMT

    What s joke . Umpires should overrule tracking error it seems . then why do u ve a technology ? technology should either be foolproof or it should not exist . Its better that v dont ve DRS than ve more number of stupid decisions cos of DRS . Human errors is more understandable than the game being flooded with technological errors

  • brittop on March 18, 2012, 8:36 GMT

    @pitch_curator: If you're against DRS make a coherent argument against it. Don't assign spurious motives to people who disagree with you.

  • brittop on March 18, 2012, 8:21 GMT

    @KennytheLeggie: Not sure we can use these "umpires" you want to bring in. I don't think they're 100% accurate. Also they're more likely to make mistakes after 6 o'clock when they've been standing in the heat all day and concentrating for six hours. They can't make decisions when there's too much light (sun gets in their eyes).

  • kabe_ag7 on March 18, 2012, 7:55 GMT

    @YorkshirePudding All that Dhoni had said (in response to a specific question) was, we would have gone back to hotel earlier. G. Smith had criticized umpires more directly than that. Several captains criticize umpires in the garb of rooting for DRS.

  • 200ondebut on March 18, 2012, 7:52 GMT

    Only people with chips on their shoulders can believe that the DRS system could be biased. The problem is with the way it is used. Umpires are more interested in protecting the embarrassment of their colleagues than ensuring the correct decision is made. We therefore have a whole range of bizarre rules that are only there to appease the umpiring union. If I had to chose between a modern computer or a 60 year old's eye sight to determine the most accurate path of a ball - I know what I would choose.

  • Gupta.Ankur on March 18, 2012, 7:51 GMT

    It seems what Indians knew 2 years back, people from other countries are realizing it now.

  • on March 18, 2012, 7:45 GMT

    Now we are in actual fact saying: DRS is better than the umpires, except when it's not. You figure out when it's not. Get rid of all the time, money & pleasure consuming idiocy and let's go back to the days when the umpire was always right. That's cricket!

  • mahjut on March 18, 2012, 7:44 GMT

    a 'not enough info' button is a simple solution. team doesn't lose a review and umpire's decision remains. When the info is available i like the DRS ... I think it's produced fewer shockers and less fan disgruntlement.

  • AnishSomani on March 18, 2012, 7:42 GMT

    DRS might make a mistake once or twice but umpires make more.The decisions are more correct when DRS are used.More decisions are overturned

  • hnharsh on March 18, 2012, 7:31 GMT

    Can someone please explain the protocol suggested by Ian Taylor? How will it be implemented?Who will overrule whom? Who is to review the DRS's decisions?How will this review be carried out?Will it done during a match? Who exactly will finally decide that the batsman is out or not?How long will any implementation take to execute on the field?

  • YorkshirePudding on March 18, 2012, 7:10 GMT

    DRS has its place for removing howlers (Bucknor @ sydney 2008), when its used for marginal decisions then it is not doing what its supposed to be there for. It would also help if Captains from a certain country didnt critise umpires decisions when they go against them as has happened in the last 12 months, causing an umpire to retire 1 game early because of the media spotlight being unfairly turned on him from a certain country.

  • on March 18, 2012, 6:58 GMT

    @ Lawton Ratnam who saidI rather trust the technology which has no bias to humans who can be dodgy!!! Really.. DRS technology runs on software programmed by humans. Bias can easily be introduced and Tayol is upset because he and his technolgy is being caught as unreliable.

  • ian45 on March 18, 2012, 6:58 GMT

    I dont know what the big noise is here, the field umpire gave taylor out the tv umpire gave taylor out and you are all whinging, this has nothing to do with drs but more about the whipping nz got, well at least they whinging about the size of the ground again lol

  • pitch_curator on March 18, 2012, 6:52 GMT

    It is clearly obvious that a majority of the people here advocating the UDRS are people who are more motivated about opposing the BCCI rather than for the good of the game. Dont even give us the dumb logic of 99% success. There have been more than a dozen fiascos so far with the technology and we have not even started using it in all series. One day they say data is not there, other day they say hot spot can not pick up snicks due to some dumb reason and on another they say the sun came in the path of the camera. when will they get the accuracy? When the earth stops revolving around the sun? And why are they "testing" this in real matches?? Isnt thorough testing to be done before we introduce technology into anything? I see this clearly as an ego issue for some people who simply want to continue as the BCCI is opposing this.

  • AliHaydar on March 18, 2012, 6:09 GMT

    I would like to see someone go back to when DRS was first implemented and start counting how many "decisions reversals" have occurred. Compare this to the number of gaffes DRS has produced thus far. I'd put down a $1,000,000 that says more incorrect decisions have been made right than mistakes the DRS has produced. The technology is flawed, but we are getting more accurate decisions on the whole because of it. DRS is here to stay.

  • Rahulbose on March 18, 2012, 5:41 GMT

    Wow I missed the part of Virtual eye throwing a tantrum after the 1st test. What unprofessional attitude. Boo hoo Kallis caled me a name, I am taking all my equipment and going home, contract what contract. Seriously even if they use DRS surely they can find better people to install and manage the system.

  • on March 18, 2012, 5:34 GMT

    If you like 'Old School' Umpiring and a return to the 'Old Values' of cricket, good luck.I can only comment on some of the crap I have seen in 20 years of watching International cricket, mostly involving South Africa.. I refer you to the sickening performance of Darryll Hair in Australia vs South Africa in Adelaide. I refer you to Javed Akhtar's 10 lbw test in South Africa versus England in 1998. Courtney Walsh's 500th wicket was a MASSIVE inside edge. Glenn McGrath who took 4 of his wickets in the Sydney test vs South Africa off no-balls. Good Old umpiring. I have yet to see a shocker from DRS. We are in the age of match fixing and technology. I am 1000 percent behind DRS, and so is every person I speak to about it. We are having the views of a belligerent 1% of viewers cloud the obvious benefit the system has brought us. In 10,000 run-out and stumping DRS reviews maybe 0,5% were wrong. In Hot Spot maybe 1% was wrong. In LBW's maybe 1% wrong. Legside pitched LBW decisions maybe 0,5%.

  • on March 18, 2012, 5:32 GMT

    Approx 80% Accuracy (Using DRS) > Sachin's [or Kalli's] Inside Edge LBW Decision!

  • Rahulbose on March 18, 2012, 5:31 GMT

    DRS is buggy, not just the technology but the use of it is also inconsistent. Plus the techinicians could easily hack the system and influence results. In days of spot-fixing do we really want that?

  • Antomann on March 18, 2012, 5:19 GMT

    The problem with DRS is that it adds nothing to the game. Umpires were already close to 100 percent accurate, and everybody knew that the bad and good decisions evened out over a career. Its absence had no effect in the Australia v India series. It's a layer of technology the game doesn't need. Keep it for run outs, chuck it out for the rest.

  • on March 18, 2012, 5:07 GMT

    this technology cost pakistan semi fina in WCl. It does not matter how many times you see ajmal lbw appeal for tendulkar scalp. There was serious error made by technology and it cost Pakistan world cup. For LBW, i alway call for umpire decision. Everything else DRS is fine.

  • Chetan007 on March 18, 2012, 5:06 GMT

    I think most of the matches played today are day night match. If the DRS rule is different for the two teams playing why to use that if its not working properly after 6:00 pm. The time may vary with season. ICC must hire other companies to have a better technology. But there is nothing 100% perfect so better to have some technology to reduce the error in a match for causing a team to loose match. ICC has to make out of whatever they have right now. I have a suggestion for the ICC to look for a small camera to be placed just in-front of the wicket so that the decision made out by the use of technology will me more accurate. If a small camera is being put over there will better serve the umpire in taking right decision. Ya there is always a risk of the camera being destroyed by the fielding team to make run outs attempt. Each time one can put a new camera again and again. So better to have that tied on the legs of umpire for the LBWs decision.There is also a problem with the angle. But

  • gdalvi on March 18, 2012, 5:03 GMT

    Doesn't reviewing something mean that you make mistakes and then you need to correct them? If we have technology, why not use it to make right decisions in first place. I say just give umpires tablets that enable them to take a second look at what happened in slow motion and possibly multiple angles) BEFORE making a decision. Then the ruling stays. Possibly 3rd umpire (may be a 4th too) can also provide inputs ruling out any howlers. It is as simple as that. This way umpires make collective decision after using only reliable technology (only what happened - not what could have happened).

  • Super70s on March 18, 2012, 4:54 GMT

    D-uh! Isn't that a no-brainer. Just let the umpires use DRS, hotspot, whatever, as an aid and give the final decision based on what they see. There should be no question of their having to be forced to obey the technology. Just like they have been doing for run-outs for a while now, take a quick look at a pocketTV after a an iffy appeal and give the decision. No need for the 2 unsuccessful reviews and all that. I see a lot of fans asking to ditch the technology and keep cricket 'traditional'. That is fine by me too, but then you have to ditch the slow motion replays on TV. Don't put the umpires under pressure by allowing all the armchair critics to judge the umpires with the unfair aid of technology-aided reviews.

  • gdalvi on March 18, 2012, 4:35 GMT

    If DRS technology is used to determine decisions, it must be 100% accurate - otherwise it is basically useless The example of seat belt and PC are not relevant here. A better comparison is surgeon using ultrasonic technology to do delicate surgery on one of your loved ones - and oops, the technology was only 98% accurate - doctor thinks the major arterary is few mm to right and then goes ahead and cuts it off basically killing the patient (your loved one). Would you accept this? Then why would you pay top $$$ for supposedly 98% accurately technology to make decisions.

  • thectexperience on March 18, 2012, 4:21 GMT

    One thing about the Ball Tracking Technology that hasnt really been discussed is that it favours the laws of the game over the tradition and spirit of the game in terms of leg-side LBWs. Typically an umpire erred towards giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt when the ball was heading towards the leg-stump in comparison with a ball of off-stump line. This is based on the perception that a leg-side delivery is not as good a ball, and the batsman missing a flick of the pads doesnt deserve to be out, at least not as much as a batsman who is deceived by movement around middle and off, is beaten by the delivery and gets struck on the pads. Nowadays, if the ball is hitting a good part of the leg stump that is considered out by Ball Tracking Technology, as stated in the rules of the game. This also convinces umpires to give more of these dismissals as out, where before their would be far more discretion in favour of the batsman

  • aurovasudev on March 18, 2012, 4:20 GMT

    DRS technology is not at all fool-proof. No ball tracking technology can ever be fool-proof. What you see until the ball pitches may be a actual record, but about the trajectory of the ball thereafter, it is only a projetion. And there is something called 'uncertainly principle'.The statistical margin of error is only for the witnessed trajectory of the ball. Its use in broadcasts to predict the trajectory of a ball had it not hit a batsman is less certain. The scientific opinion is experimentally discussed in a paper: Public Understand. Sci. 17 (2008) 283-308./(www.sagepublications.com)

    Now, it is found that after 6pm the ball-tracking cameras were not able to pick as much data as in the day. introducing more unreliability. Anybody cares? I am not a supporter of BCCI; rather I have a healthy disrespect, nay, contempt, for the politicians and businessmen who manage BCCI. But BCCI is right in opposing DRS.

  • djdude123 on March 18, 2012, 4:17 GMT

    ross taylor if there was no drs ,the game would not be fun and the umpires decision was out so even if there was no drs , you would have been still out

  • SrUmpire on March 18, 2012, 4:05 GMT

    60,000$ a day for this piece of crap???

  • Buggsy on March 18, 2012, 3:59 GMT

    @RoJayao, umpires may have served the game well now for a very long time, but unfortunately the mistakes they have always made are now being brought to the fore with new replay tech. It's easy to ask the broadcasters to remove the replays, but that's never going to happen. DRS is badly needed to counter this, the system just needs time to mature where the majority are happy with it. Even in its current form, DRS is still far more accurate than an on field umpire ever will be.

  • Fireballz on March 18, 2012, 3:53 GMT

    I like all this talk of unreliability. If an umpire said "I gave it out because I thought it was hitting middle and leg", but it was found to be clipping leg but still out, why the controversy? DRS is more accurate than the umpires and the data has shown more correct decisions since it's introductions. If they say it's correct 99% of the time, then we can't have articles about it for the 1% it doesn't. The opposition to DRS is ridiculous.

  • Tiberius on March 18, 2012, 3:52 GMT

    This maybe a stupid suggestion, but why don't they put a tracking chip inside the ball?

  • hattima on March 18, 2012, 3:46 GMT

    @i-mac would you use a gps that costs $100000 if it is incorrect 30% of the times, just because your wife sometimes makes mistakes reading the maps? I would not!

  • RogerC on March 18, 2012, 3:43 GMT

    Ross Taylor says "Umpires make the right decisions and umpires make a bad decision, I guess it's the same as the DRS." In such a case, why use DRS which is so expensive? A lot of times, the cost of DRS is more than the gate collections for the match. Ridiculous.

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on March 18, 2012, 3:41 GMT

    @SRT_GENIUS, hahaha.....that's the best I've heard on Cricinfo. You cracked me up boss. Take a bow!!! hahahahaha.....mint....but you just don't say that. do you???? You just say technology is not good. hahahaha.....

  • RoJayao on March 18, 2012, 2:59 GMT

    Look, all the controversy with the DRS will never ever die down because every now and then it produces a result that is palpably wrong! Hence the true accuracy of the system and it's integrity is brought into question. We need to ask ourselves, is cricket a fundamentally better game because of DRS? Could the game function without it? The answers for me are very clearly NO and YES! I thought India were being stubborn refusing to use the system, but after enjoying the recent series in Australia DRS free, I completely agree with their stance now. Let's get rid of it. Umpires have served the game well for 150 years, let's stick with them.

  • kristee on March 18, 2012, 2:46 GMT

    DRS may produce bad decisions, not howlers. Shifting the benefit of doubt scenario from field umpire to batter, it's very useful. And normal TV replays suffice, pending satisfactory progress in further applications.

  • on March 18, 2012, 2:03 GMT

    I rather trust the technology which has no bias to humans who can be dodgy!!!

  • Mitcher on March 18, 2012, 2:01 GMT

    Despite all the dramas - I defy anyone to suggest we haven't had more correct decisions and less howlers through DRS. Of course the system needs to be improved. Take the BCCI option and there's no scope for that.

  • I-Mac on March 18, 2012, 1:38 GMT

    A storm in a tea cup. It really is simple. The technology is there to assist the umpires. If the technology can not provide accurate assistance due to data loses it should be ignored. The system itself should inform the users that it is unreliable in which case the umpires decisions alone rule. Technology is here to stay and should be used in all matches so accept it...and it makes the game more enjoyable to watch.

  • on March 18, 2012, 1:23 GMT

    Like i said ditch all this unreliable technology and go old school,lets enjoy the real game.Sooner or later this great game will lose its tile of "glorious uncertainty" !

  • Lazys0d1990 on March 18, 2012, 1:14 GMT

    @KennytheLeggie - You took the words brother! I think the majority of fans out there would agree with you too!

  • johntycodes on March 18, 2012, 1:06 GMT

    I can't see why the creator is upset. He has designed a system that is nowhere near accurate he is getting paid heaps for it and is a complete scam artist. The DRS system is a very good tool just not the ball tracking part. They don't need to be told what will happen. Just concentratewhat did happen like edges that are clearly visible or pitching outside leg where you are reviewing something that actually happened not something that is going to happen.

  • KP_84 on March 18, 2012, 1:02 GMT

    I hope the Indians don't make a big deal out of this. The errors caused by ball-tracking technology are vastly out-numbered by the number of human errors that are corrected by it. This has caused a net improvement in decisions over the past few years. Hopefully they will continue to improve the ball-tracking technology and achieve a level of accuracy that will allow us to put an end to this dispute over the use of technology in decision-making.

  • sixnout on March 18, 2012, 1:02 GMT

    Ross Taylor - The Gentleman. Probably following the age old direction of not hitting a man when he is down :)

  • onlyIndiathebest on March 18, 2012, 0:36 GMT

    I don't think why all the fuss is about. Still both systems are considerabaly more accurate in camparison to umpiring errors. technology has to be improve, no doubt, but it's like insisting on the creation because evolution is not scientific enough.

  • samincolumbia on March 18, 2012, 0:31 GMT

    The ball tracking technology is fundamentally flawed when it has to depend on light to get the correct decision. So, basically if the correct amount of light does not pass thru the 4 cameras every time, the decision can be flawed. And how much are the boards paying for this ridiculous technology?!

  • m0se on March 18, 2012, 0:15 GMT

    The ball tracking technology is missing a fundamental aspect - the confidence interval. All the graphics should also include a 99% confidence interval for the ball. When there is a malfunction or some data is missing, it creates a path that might be pure fiction but then the confidence intervals should show that the estimate of the ball tracking is a shaky estimate.

  • KennytheLeggie on March 18, 2012, 0:09 GMT

    I got an amazing idea. Now you all have to stay with me on this, it gets a bit complicated. Right. Here we go. We have two humans, both trained umpires in the laws of the game, and one stands behind the stumps at the non strikers end whilst the ball is being bowled, to judge no-balls, caught behinds, LBWs etc, and one at square leg to judge if a catch has carried, no balls for waist height or more than 2 behind square etc. I know this concept is a bit out there, but the ICC might pick up on it. Wish me luck people.

  • on March 17, 2012, 23:55 GMT

    Are we going to replace umpires with bots, if the bots become very accurate in the future. The question is how much human judgement is needed for the game. The game would be less interesting if all decisions were made by robots. So technology should always be an assistant to the umpires even if it means the assistant is better than the master.

  • johnathonjosephs on March 17, 2012, 23:55 GMT

    The biggest problem with UDRS is the expectations. People (fans, players, umpires, BCCI) are expecting it to 100% eliminate all errors. Nothing in the world or even 100 years from now can do that. Fact: UDRS has actually improved bad decisions/howlers by quite a lot (look at the World Cup). The fact is the only mistakes that have been made with UDRS was due to Umpire Errors (not seeing Dravid's shoelace hit the bat, ball pitched 2.5 meters in front, too little light to see anything, etc). There really has not been one straight up HOWLER that the UDRS has given. Most decisions from the UDRS could go both ways and the umpires need to learn how to use the UDRS. UDRS is simply not a television replay, there is quite a lot of information to go with it.

  • johnathonjosephs on March 17, 2012, 23:55 GMT

    The biggest problem with UDRS is the expectations. People (fans, players, umpires, BCCI) are expecting it to 100% eliminate all errors. Nothing in the world or even 100 years from now can do that. Fact: UDRS has actually improved bad decisions/howlers by quite a lot (look at the World Cup). The fact is the only mistakes that have been made with UDRS was due to Umpire Errors (not seeing Dravid's shoelace hit the bat, ball pitched 2.5 meters in front, too little light to see anything, etc). There really has not been one straight up HOWLER that the UDRS has given. Most decisions from the UDRS could go both ways and the umpires need to learn how to use the UDRS. UDRS is simply not a television replay, there is quite a lot of information to go with it.

  • johnathonjosephs on March 17, 2012, 23:50 GMT

    The DRS is the most accurate thing out there. Period. Its the umpires/ICC that don't know how to use it properly though. If the machine will err when there is less light, then make sure there is proper light. You must make sure all parameters are there or else it will obviously make mistakes. There is NO flaw in the actual judgement of predictive paths, it is 99% accurate, its just that umpires must learn how to use it properly. How many times have we blamed Hot Spot for giving a batsman wrongly out/not out when in fact on reexamination, there is a tiny white spot on the bat? The technology is right, the umpires must learn to use it though. I say that umpires be required to take an informative course on UDRS and passing it in order to umpire

  • The_Wog on March 17, 2012, 23:42 GMT

    It's not that difficult. We use 3Us that are typically Elite Panel umpires resting from the previous match - we don't use the work-experience assistant curator to run the video official booth. Watching the match live I thought "Wow, is that REALLY the line it hit him??" What prevents a 3U from coming to the same view and declaring "unreliable feed" and calling it as he sees it? That way we still get the benefit of replays, judgement of an experienced umpire, and picking up gross errors (of which this wasn't one).

    Put up on the screen 4 lights for "active / inactive" on the 4 cameras. 3U treats with caution 3 lights and uses ONLY judgement of replay at 2.

    I've heard this routine from the BCCI's supporters for 2 years. Hawkeye processes 99% of paths flawlessly with full data, generating extreme accuracy. Not one of the other 1% has resulted in the CREATION of an umpire error - at worst, a wrong decision was upheld, making it no worse. In that time dozens of real errors overturned.

  • on March 17, 2012, 23:31 GMT

    @ryan agreed..but u also don't install seat belts without first testing their design and application in labs and numerous safety tests...hope u got my point.

  • wicked.wizard on March 17, 2012, 23:25 GMT

    Cricket has survived over 100 years, with probably less than 5 occasions (dont have the stats) of a team complaining or feeling cheated by the umpires. I can remember only one incident where a team felt cheated by umpires when all decisions were against them. However apart from that one incident which was the pre cursor for DRS, equal decisions are made in favor/against a team over a relatively long period of time if not in a match or series.

  • on March 17, 2012, 23:20 GMT

    All this tells me that BCCI IS right. We should play in the spirit of the game, with decisions by umpires and add areas of assistance that are fool proof, e.g. catches, run-outs, boundaries, no-ball etc. But things like LBW where over and over we are shown the failure of the system is sad. How about the two times, Dravid had no contact with the ball but snick still picked up the sound and he was given out. And worst ever was for DHONI, when a previous delivery was shown for his dismissal. As the errors are not balanced for both sides, it is bound to impact one team more and hence change the course of the game. Learn from FIFA please.. as they are testing so much before putting a goal-line camera in. ICC seems to be run by morons who are happy to test half baked ideas live, and the tests have gone on for five + years without showing if we are moving forward or backwards.

  • wicked.wizard on March 17, 2012, 23:19 GMT

    @Ryan Stephen : without a seatbelt, one would die 99/100 times in fatal accidents, while with one, one would probably be saved 5/10 times. With umpires, we get correct decisions 9.5/10 times with DRS probably 9.8/10times.

    Whats the logic of using technology, when it makes negligible difference and creates controversy with every third decision? At least a wrong decision made by an umpire leaves no room for debate, just human error which is the reality of life. DRS just leaves room for complaints, controversies, and all the hula bala with one team or player feeling cheated.

  • mateyman on March 17, 2012, 23:19 GMT

    @ryan stephen I completely agree. So the DRS fails 1/100 times and people fail 1/10 times so we get better result. What's the issue?

  • on March 17, 2012, 23:14 GMT

    Honestly,technology has killed the game,since the game's inception,umpires have been put there for a reason.Computers are dummies,we still have to tell them what to do.Forget the technology lets have some real cricket and the umpires decisions are final but use the 3rd umpire as necessary.

  • kitten on March 17, 2012, 23:05 GMT

    wicked.wizard..'.i dont mind umpires giving howlers so long as its not just one team that suffers multiple times through out the match. This wouldn't happen anyway unless umpires are biased(which is highly unlikely)'. I don't think you saw the match at Sydney a few years ago which was umpired by Bucknor and Benson. There was one howler after another, and 90% in favour of Australia. And most were made by Bucknor, who was eventually removed and replaced for the next test by Billy Bowden. One mistake is acceptable, or even maybe two, but when one after another is made, and all in favour of one team, it does make one wonder. However, happy to note that in the recent times, very few mistakes are made by the umpires in the middle, and because of DRS, a few of these are corrected, even though there have been a few occasions when the third umpire has got it wrong!

  • on March 17, 2012, 22:48 GMT

    I'm sure it has once happened before that a seat belt has failed in a car accident, therefore we should ditch using all seat belts and never use them at all. This is BCCI logic

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on March 17, 2012, 22:48 GMT

    @Digimont, but my PC doesn't cost boatloads of money and also I don't decide the course of a game or somebody else's future with my 'flawed' PC. There you go.

  • Sushrut-Cricketcrazy on March 17, 2012, 22:40 GMT

    Basically the ball tracking technology (Hawk Eye or Virtual Eye or whatever eye they name it) is subjected to the following riders:- 1) Does not work well after 6 pm. 2) Inaccurate if point of impact is 2.5m or more from the stumps. 3) If the ball shaves the outside of the off-stump or the leg stump then it is the umpire's call. 4) Results may vary depending upon the frames per second.

    So instead of going with this kind of technology, which is purely "speculative" in nature, we might as well rely upon the umpire's call. DRS can still be implemented without the ball tracking technology to get rid of the absolute howlers.

  • MaruthuDelft on March 17, 2012, 22:12 GMT

    @ Harsh Grewal, first all the factors you have stated could be incorporated as variables in the predictive path calculation. It is just a matter of adding more sensors and adding more code. second, with so many engineering colleges churning out so called engineers in india you just can't say Srinivasan is an engineer so he must know better than Tony Greig.

  • on March 17, 2012, 21:46 GMT

    Even if there is a 25% improvement in decision making, than why are we questioning the technology. How many times in like 6 months have we seen ball completely going down leg side, yet with the batsman or captain's ability to verify the decision with DRS has helped with the right decision? Many time. Simply too many for ICC to throw away the technology.

    Technology improvement are required, and just like any other system in the world, it must be improved. But in the mean time, rely on what you have to make system better.

    Unlike all the Indian players, at least Ross Taylor gets the point.

  • Digimont on March 17, 2012, 20:46 GMT

    I shudder to think where this issue may go...

    The review system is great theatre for both TV and those live at the ground, and it should stay for that reason alone.

    There will always be technical issues with any electronic system - has your PC NEVER locked up, or done something unexpected? Let's try something simpler..has your digital alarm clock unexpectedly failed to activate one morning?

    These are the kind of points Ian Taylor is trying to make. There needs to be rules that effectively allow DRS to say "sorry, didn't quite get that one, back to you human". DRS istelf hasn't actually failed, the cameras have. DRS can't make good out of a bad situation and nobody should expect it to.

    We should not consider this a failing of DRS, but one of the things that will happen from time to time. In the occasional circumstance, I have no problem with a decision being referred back, instead of potentially compunding the issue by accepting a decision the DRS operator knows is dodgy.

  • SRT_GENIUS on March 17, 2012, 20:45 GMT

    @Dravid_Gravitas: BCCI was not smarter, it was ungreased.

  • on March 17, 2012, 20:42 GMT

    Another ridiculous bit of red tape. We never had this rubbish in the "old days" when an umpire decision stood even when it was a shocker.

    As a matter of fact, television reviews have always proven how many the umpires get right.

    There are too many band-aid fixes and compromises that have plagued this system. How many reviews have we disagreed with, particularly LBWs because the "half-a-ball" required was just a single pixel outside the requirement?

    Hey, remember this little gem from the "Preamble to the Laws" found the Laws of Cricket?

    "5. It is against the Spirit of the Game:

    To dispute an umpire's decision by word, action or gesture"

    The DRS has always been fundamentally wrong. They should dump the whole system and start again.

  • on March 17, 2012, 20:37 GMT

    The DRS system should be there as an aid for the umpires and not have the ability to overrule the umpires rather the umpires get the chance to change thier decision. Back in the bad old days without the DRS it was a shame to see batsmen get out to clear mistakes by the umpires. If the DRS helps reduce errors in dismissals then its a good thing. The Jaques Rudolf dismissal in the 2nd innings of the first test for instance should have stood, because of a margin of error, it was good enough to be out with the naked eye by the umpire standing on the pitch and shouldn't be up to technology to say they are wrong even by a few millimeters. Its non the technology that is wrong just the way it is used.

  • Ropsh on March 17, 2012, 20:32 GMT

    Face it - the predictive path element of ball-traciking technology (both VirtualEye and HawkEye) is fundamentally flawed and not fit for purpose.

    Until the technology is significantly improved AND the confidence intervals around the predictive path are shown on TV, the predictive path is little better than a line drawn on a piece of paper by a five year old.

  • on March 17, 2012, 20:28 GMT

    why is this such an issue. The umpires should disregard the technology if it is malfunctioning. In this case with only 2 of 4 cameras working it should be disregarded. This isn't proof for the BCCI that it doesnt work, just proof things can fail

  • wicked.wizard on March 17, 2012, 20:16 GMT

    "It's there. Umpires make the right decisions and umpires make a bad decision, I guess it's the same as the DRS." Ross Taylor Whats the point of DRS then? i dont mind umpires giving howlers so long as its not just one team that suffers multiple times through out the match. This wouldn't happen anyway unless umpires are biased(which is highly unlikely).

  • on March 17, 2012, 20:12 GMT

    i think the indians made right calls on drs , but the whole world laughed and opposed indian team and bcci. mr srinivasnan siad in interview to ndtv that the ball tracking technology was not perfect and he himself was an engineer so the bcci chief knew what he was talking but people like tony greg, and the whole western media laughed and made mockery of bcci and indian team. today when they get a poor decision they are crying. it is a fashion to criticize indians and bcci. how can the ball tracking techonolgy be trusted when the bounce on the pitch varies from day to day and not only that sometimes one side of the pitch is faster than the other. also what about the wind factor , and the swing , how can they be accurate, especially in windy wellington.

  • ADXI on March 17, 2012, 19:48 GMT

    ICC scrap DRS...it has not yet been perfected for use...thats there for everyone to see on a number of occasions

  • SRT_GENIUS on March 17, 2012, 19:41 GMT

    "It's there. Umpires make the right decisions and umpires make a bad decision, I guess it's the same as the DRS." (... But if umpires are making bad decisions on their own, I don't make tonnes of money!!!).

  • anuradha_d on March 17, 2012, 19:27 GMT

    Umpires should over rule Technology !!! Well wasn't technology meant to overrule the umpires?????..

  • Jburger on March 17, 2012, 19:23 GMT

    When i watched that live (taylor's dismissal) i thought no way that is sliding down leg. I instantly thought... thank goodness we have DRS... then watched as it swung a mile even hitting taylor on the left of his left leg. Then it showed hitting middle. Clearly some major issues to sort out. Taylor also instantly referred the decision. I do rate DRS highly as it is eliminating a lot of mistakes front the game, maybe just a few adjustments to be made.

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on March 17, 2012, 19:22 GMT

    This technology is utter trash which needs to be bought for boatloads of money. Stop this nonsense. BCCI was right all along. Kudos to my board for being sharp enough and standing your ground at the same time.

  • theVet on March 17, 2012, 18:46 GMT

    As a former Hawk-Eye operator, I find Taylor's honesty about the deficiencies of their system wonderfully refreshing. If only all ball-tracking providers were this honest....

  • on March 17, 2012, 18:44 GMT

    I am agree with Taylor comments regarding using of DRS if due to some technical problems the system unable to make a correct dession so the third empire should you the third option button " insufficient data available and the field empire should take the final call for the dismissal, It is the ICC full responsibility to review the system, and stop its implementation untill the system should updated and redeeme the errors

  • on March 17, 2012, 18:40 GMT

    With no guideline as to when to actually overrule Virtual Eye, decisions would have to be left to the subjective dispositions of individual umpires. This would be an anomalous situation as the same appeal could lead to a different decision. When will Virtual Eye be considered to have 'obviously' erred?

  • cricket.fanatic__ on March 17, 2012, 18:35 GMT

    Blame the BCCI.... :P :P :P :P

  • Maestro_of_Cricket on March 17, 2012, 18:30 GMT

    Ditch Virtual Eye and assign Hawk Eye as the official ball tracking technology provider. ICC have to take action soon about this before DRS gets rejected based on this.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Maestro_of_Cricket on March 17, 2012, 18:30 GMT

    Ditch Virtual Eye and assign Hawk Eye as the official ball tracking technology provider. ICC have to take action soon about this before DRS gets rejected based on this.

  • cricket.fanatic__ on March 17, 2012, 18:35 GMT

    Blame the BCCI.... :P :P :P :P

  • on March 17, 2012, 18:40 GMT

    With no guideline as to when to actually overrule Virtual Eye, decisions would have to be left to the subjective dispositions of individual umpires. This would be an anomalous situation as the same appeal could lead to a different decision. When will Virtual Eye be considered to have 'obviously' erred?

  • on March 17, 2012, 18:44 GMT

    I am agree with Taylor comments regarding using of DRS if due to some technical problems the system unable to make a correct dession so the third empire should you the third option button " insufficient data available and the field empire should take the final call for the dismissal, It is the ICC full responsibility to review the system, and stop its implementation untill the system should updated and redeeme the errors

  • theVet on March 17, 2012, 18:46 GMT

    As a former Hawk-Eye operator, I find Taylor's honesty about the deficiencies of their system wonderfully refreshing. If only all ball-tracking providers were this honest....

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on March 17, 2012, 19:22 GMT

    This technology is utter trash which needs to be bought for boatloads of money. Stop this nonsense. BCCI was right all along. Kudos to my board for being sharp enough and standing your ground at the same time.

  • Jburger on March 17, 2012, 19:23 GMT

    When i watched that live (taylor's dismissal) i thought no way that is sliding down leg. I instantly thought... thank goodness we have DRS... then watched as it swung a mile even hitting taylor on the left of his left leg. Then it showed hitting middle. Clearly some major issues to sort out. Taylor also instantly referred the decision. I do rate DRS highly as it is eliminating a lot of mistakes front the game, maybe just a few adjustments to be made.

  • anuradha_d on March 17, 2012, 19:27 GMT

    Umpires should over rule Technology !!! Well wasn't technology meant to overrule the umpires?????..

  • SRT_GENIUS on March 17, 2012, 19:41 GMT

    "It's there. Umpires make the right decisions and umpires make a bad decision, I guess it's the same as the DRS." (... But if umpires are making bad decisions on their own, I don't make tonnes of money!!!).

  • ADXI on March 17, 2012, 19:48 GMT

    ICC scrap DRS...it has not yet been perfected for use...thats there for everyone to see on a number of occasions