South Africa v India, 2nd Test, Durban, 4th day December 29, 2010

Smith calls for uniformity in UDRS

  shares 215

Graeme Smith, the South Africa captain, has once again called for the ICC to establish uniformity in the use of the UDRS. "The ICC needs to take responsibility for that," he said after South Africa's loss in the second Test against India in Durban. "They can't leave it up to boards to negotiate. They must lead the way."

The decision not to use the UDRS was taken by Cricket South Africa (CSA), in consultation with the BCCI in November. CSA were keen to use the system, but the BCCI refused. At the time of negotiation, Smith said he believed UDRS could only be effective if it was used in all Test matches and not a selection of them.

He reiterated his stance on Wednesday. "Using it once every seven series is not going to benefit anybody. If the technology is available and they want us to use it, then we must use it. Then you can have a proper idea of whether it works or not." Smith's statements were fuelled by three decisions that did not go South Africa's way in the match.

Zaheer Khan got away with an lbw shout off Dale Steyn's bowling on day three when he was on 10 and his eight-wicket stand with VVS Laxman was worth 33. He went on to make 27 and share in an 70-run partnership with Laxman. Umpire Steve Davis was responsible for that decision. Two of South Africa's batsmen were unlucky to be given out on the fourth day. AB de Villiers was adjudged lbw by Asad Rauf off the bowling of Harbhajan Singh. Replays showed the ball was going over the top of middle stump. Mark Boucher got an even worse decision when Davis gave him out lbw to Zaheer, to a delivery that was too high and missing off stump. There was also an incident where India might have benefitted from a referral. Harbhajan Singh had an lbw appeal against Ashwell Prince turned down when there was a suspicion of an inside-edge, but replays showed the ball had hit pad first.

As per the ICC's regulations, the host country must decide on the use of the UDRS in consultation with the visiting nation. It was in South Africa's power as the host nation to insist on the use of the UDRS, but they did not do so. CSA and the BCCI have a history of friendly relations, which dates back to South Africa's readmission into international cricket in 1991, and presumably, South Africa did not want to put that relationship at risk.

Prior to this series, South Africa had used the UDRS in three of their last four Test series, with the exception being their tour of India. India have only used the UDRS once, in a series against Sri Lanka in 2008.

Firdose Moonda is ESPNcricinfo's South Africa correspondent

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Vijay_P_S on January 1, 2011, 5:52 GMT

    @Bob Young, "How can you be so misguided".. take it easy Bob.. it was supposed to be humorous.

  • on January 1, 2011, 2:55 GMT

    @magnum: yes exactly my view. I mean when a batsman leaves a ball and it cuts him in half and goes over the stumps , we say it is a good leave. Plus the commentators say something along the lines of "don't play at a ball unnecessarily". Glenn mcgrath got a lot of wickets lbw when the ball was missing the stumps. This is where udrs makes a fairer decision for both teams involved and not just the team who sledges/ has muscle power/ is higher ranked.

    @rameshsubramaniam: yes the batsman will be out but the batting side won't lose a review , assuming of course, the on field umpire gave him out caught behind originally and not lbw (which will be confirmed from the on field umpire by the third umpire). Also, it's not fair to assume that "all fans and umpires and commentators don't know what will happen". On the contrary, most of us do know. Just saying:)

  • RameshSubramaniam on December 31, 2010, 20:04 GMT

    @Bob Young: You do not need to play cricket on the same pitch to say whether the ball will hit the wicket or not.ICC hasto prove UDRS is correct before makaing this as mandatory. Incase of marginal decisions, anyway decision stays with on-field umpires. If the ball hits the bails and umpire says not out , then it is not out. In that case, why you are not believing the technology? I think BCCI took this stand because umpires do not follow the consistency in over turning the decision. Tell me if the umpire give out for caught behind and bats man reviews it, he finds there is no nick but it is plump. Will he give that out lbw? Noone knows. ICC do not know, umpires do not know, fans do not know. WHo will know?

  • simpleguy2008 on December 31, 2010, 19:19 GMT

    I request ICC to implement this UDRS now to all test cricketing nation in all format of the game if no one agrees then fine them.

  • Philip_Gnana on December 31, 2010, 15:31 GMT

    The UDRS is here to stay. It may not be at the moment in certain quarters. But it will eventually. My main issue is not the UDRS but the way it is being introduced. The first option should be for the third Umpired to be given the powers to change the decision. The third Umpire should also be strong and be willing to turn the decisions in saying that I mean, he should not be seen to undermine the onfield umpire. If this was the case we would not be arguing with the 2 attempt per inning rule. If you are out you are out. If you are not out then you are not out. Why should fairness be ignored? We have seen time and again how good the UDRS has worked so far this year. The challenging captains must ensure that he is not being emotional and act on the spur of the moment. Decision should be based on fact and reasonability. Indians have not used this system effectively. That is the bottom line in them rejecting it. Time to think objectively. Philip Gnana, Surrey

  • A.Afker on December 31, 2010, 14:57 GMT

    All the Indian Fans are giving various reasons to neutralized why UDRS not used.If this happen to IND and eventually if they (IND) loss this match, by then you can see differant kind of comments in this column for sure.But here SA is the victimised team so they will give differance reasons.This is the world.Smith is spot on in this regard.After they lost by an innings even they will give excuses like Toss.Then imagine what will they say if IND will effected by this.Just imagine.

  • AMBH on December 31, 2010, 14:14 GMT

    for all who commented for using UDRS.. jus one question.. why ICC giving only three chances to use per team...?give it for all doubtfull decisions...? it ll be better debate and ll be balanced answer to every cricket boards.... jus think about this point.

  • stormy16 on December 31, 2010, 9:43 GMT

    For those of us who are incapable of understanding the issue, Smith clearly stated that India played better cricket and deserved to win and SA played bad cricket and it was a great come back by India. The point here being why is the BCCI adament on not using the UDRS when the rest of the world are happy with it and using it for correct decisions to be made. The issue of caliberating ect are non-sensical reasons for not adopting technology. Even it its not caliberated it will be consistent which is the key requirement in umpiring. Using technology for correct decisiosn is used in most international sports except it seems for cricket and soccer!!

  • Magnum_Octopus on December 31, 2010, 9:29 GMT

    What saddens me is the attitude of some of the commentators. I know SA fans are no angels themselves, but my experience of Indian cricket fans has always been that they are deeply knowledgeable, respectful and considerate of others. Clearly success has not been good for the attitude of some Indian commentators on this site, who are every bit as arrogant, hypersensitive and opinionated as the Aussies they so love to bash. Shame on you, you're doing a GREAT cricketing team and nation no favours at all. Also remember that UDRS would probably have saved the Sydney 08 test, and it was not introduced as a measure to cheat India out of deserved test wins

  • Magnum_Octopus on December 31, 2010, 9:25 GMT

    Let's put the cards on the table. I am a Proteas fan and the team did not deserve to win the Test. To put in the opposition and then trail by 70 on the first innings means you haven't done yourself justice, and India clearly used the conditions better in the field. Period. I also think UDRS should be given a chance - surely logic dictates that "unproven, not necessarily 100% accurate" technology that will give you the CORRECT decision when the umpire has clearly been 0% accurate on that decision, is better than sticking with the mistake. And to the commentators who think the batsman offering no shot automatically gives the benefit of the doubt to the bowler, the ball still has to be HITTING THE WICKETS!!! You don't just get an lbw decision because the batsman has been foolish enough to pad up? I know it's a batsman's game, but come on!

  • Vijay_P_S on January 1, 2011, 5:52 GMT

    @Bob Young, "How can you be so misguided".. take it easy Bob.. it was supposed to be humorous.

  • on January 1, 2011, 2:55 GMT

    @magnum: yes exactly my view. I mean when a batsman leaves a ball and it cuts him in half and goes over the stumps , we say it is a good leave. Plus the commentators say something along the lines of "don't play at a ball unnecessarily". Glenn mcgrath got a lot of wickets lbw when the ball was missing the stumps. This is where udrs makes a fairer decision for both teams involved and not just the team who sledges/ has muscle power/ is higher ranked.

    @rameshsubramaniam: yes the batsman will be out but the batting side won't lose a review , assuming of course, the on field umpire gave him out caught behind originally and not lbw (which will be confirmed from the on field umpire by the third umpire). Also, it's not fair to assume that "all fans and umpires and commentators don't know what will happen". On the contrary, most of us do know. Just saying:)

  • RameshSubramaniam on December 31, 2010, 20:04 GMT

    @Bob Young: You do not need to play cricket on the same pitch to say whether the ball will hit the wicket or not.ICC hasto prove UDRS is correct before makaing this as mandatory. Incase of marginal decisions, anyway decision stays with on-field umpires. If the ball hits the bails and umpire says not out , then it is not out. In that case, why you are not believing the technology? I think BCCI took this stand because umpires do not follow the consistency in over turning the decision. Tell me if the umpire give out for caught behind and bats man reviews it, he finds there is no nick but it is plump. Will he give that out lbw? Noone knows. ICC do not know, umpires do not know, fans do not know. WHo will know?

  • simpleguy2008 on December 31, 2010, 19:19 GMT

    I request ICC to implement this UDRS now to all test cricketing nation in all format of the game if no one agrees then fine them.

  • Philip_Gnana on December 31, 2010, 15:31 GMT

    The UDRS is here to stay. It may not be at the moment in certain quarters. But it will eventually. My main issue is not the UDRS but the way it is being introduced. The first option should be for the third Umpired to be given the powers to change the decision. The third Umpire should also be strong and be willing to turn the decisions in saying that I mean, he should not be seen to undermine the onfield umpire. If this was the case we would not be arguing with the 2 attempt per inning rule. If you are out you are out. If you are not out then you are not out. Why should fairness be ignored? We have seen time and again how good the UDRS has worked so far this year. The challenging captains must ensure that he is not being emotional and act on the spur of the moment. Decision should be based on fact and reasonability. Indians have not used this system effectively. That is the bottom line in them rejecting it. Time to think objectively. Philip Gnana, Surrey

  • A.Afker on December 31, 2010, 14:57 GMT

    All the Indian Fans are giving various reasons to neutralized why UDRS not used.If this happen to IND and eventually if they (IND) loss this match, by then you can see differant kind of comments in this column for sure.But here SA is the victimised team so they will give differance reasons.This is the world.Smith is spot on in this regard.After they lost by an innings even they will give excuses like Toss.Then imagine what will they say if IND will effected by this.Just imagine.

  • AMBH on December 31, 2010, 14:14 GMT

    for all who commented for using UDRS.. jus one question.. why ICC giving only three chances to use per team...?give it for all doubtfull decisions...? it ll be better debate and ll be balanced answer to every cricket boards.... jus think about this point.

  • stormy16 on December 31, 2010, 9:43 GMT

    For those of us who are incapable of understanding the issue, Smith clearly stated that India played better cricket and deserved to win and SA played bad cricket and it was a great come back by India. The point here being why is the BCCI adament on not using the UDRS when the rest of the world are happy with it and using it for correct decisions to be made. The issue of caliberating ect are non-sensical reasons for not adopting technology. Even it its not caliberated it will be consistent which is the key requirement in umpiring. Using technology for correct decisiosn is used in most international sports except it seems for cricket and soccer!!

  • Magnum_Octopus on December 31, 2010, 9:29 GMT

    What saddens me is the attitude of some of the commentators. I know SA fans are no angels themselves, but my experience of Indian cricket fans has always been that they are deeply knowledgeable, respectful and considerate of others. Clearly success has not been good for the attitude of some Indian commentators on this site, who are every bit as arrogant, hypersensitive and opinionated as the Aussies they so love to bash. Shame on you, you're doing a GREAT cricketing team and nation no favours at all. Also remember that UDRS would probably have saved the Sydney 08 test, and it was not introduced as a measure to cheat India out of deserved test wins

  • Magnum_Octopus on December 31, 2010, 9:25 GMT

    Let's put the cards on the table. I am a Proteas fan and the team did not deserve to win the Test. To put in the opposition and then trail by 70 on the first innings means you haven't done yourself justice, and India clearly used the conditions better in the field. Period. I also think UDRS should be given a chance - surely logic dictates that "unproven, not necessarily 100% accurate" technology that will give you the CORRECT decision when the umpire has clearly been 0% accurate on that decision, is better than sticking with the mistake. And to the commentators who think the batsman offering no shot automatically gives the benefit of the doubt to the bowler, the ball still has to be HITTING THE WICKETS!!! You don't just get an lbw decision because the batsman has been foolish enough to pad up? I know it's a batsman's game, but come on!

  • on December 30, 2010, 23:49 GMT

    I think people naively (or ignorantly) assume that these soundbites spring up out of a vacuum and therefore Smith is moaning or being a sore loser. These articles are written based on post-match interviews. Smith was obviously asked a question about the UDRS and responded in accordance with a stance that he has held for some time. Why bash the man for sticking to his principles when questioned by a journalist?

  • Philip_Gnana on December 30, 2010, 20:35 GMT

    Know the UDRS sytem first, that is my advice. Much work and testing has gone in this system that takes it account various permutations and combinations. Pitch conditions, bounce, climate, stae of the wicket, the various spin element, tram lines, pad bat, bat pad, angle of delivery, spead of rotation , tragectory, hot spot etc.... The UDRS has been evloving and advancing with the required needs. If we igonroe and want to remain in the age of dinasaurs it will be to our own peril. We can see for ouselves the benefits regarding runouts and this same approach much be taken. The UDRS system need not be taken in its entirety either. For example the boards can decide to take tramlines, hotspots, bat pad, caught behinds etc and ignore the lbw totally too.. why not take an objective approach. We need to start somewhere. Philip Gnana, Surrey

  • armistry on December 30, 2010, 20:33 GMT

    oh Mr.Smith, where were you in 1st test? just because RSA won you did not care about UDRS? suck it up dude!

    I am pretty sure reading earlier that both nations have to agree for use of UDRS but if one nation does not than you can't use it.

    I do agree that UDRS is better than humans but truth is hawk-eye is totally unreliable, only hot-spot is nearly perfect. I said nearly because in recent ashes even before the ball reached batsman there were hot spots on gloves and pads, and it would be very difficult to differentiate if existing hot spot overlaps with ball/bat/pad contact hot spot. someone already mentioned why hawk-eye is unreliable as there is no way to predict how much bounce will be there on mumbai vs durban vs rest of the world?

  • tanveers on December 30, 2010, 19:46 GMT

    We know that, might is right. Well, might is always right. The mighty BCCI dictates ICC so no point of UDRS in Indian series. All rules are in favor of India. It's their time. Let them relish it. Umpires are scared and want to remain in the panel so why would they make decision against the Indian team? Instead they favor Indian team on delicate times of the games so that Indian team has the most favorable chance of winning a test match. Remember what happened the Bucknor? He was humiliated and had to retire. Davis or any other Umpire does not want to follow Bucknor's path of defamation. Even the commentators or normal viewers knew that Boucher was not out. What was the rush by Davis to raise his finger? The ball was angling towards slip. But fret not my friends, this so-called #1 rank is temporary. Wait till the seniors retire and then Indian team will be just another mediocre team - no amount of umpire favors will help them.

  • on December 30, 2010, 18:09 GMT

    @abhinandan.chiney, If hawkeye is not 100% accurate against an lbw, then obviously totally incorrect umpiring decisions are! What would you like, the higher or lower probability. It seems only certain "people" are not convinced. Why are the umpires allowed a review of a possible no-ball, or short bounce catch but the captains aren't allowed the same courtesy. Shouldn't all decisions then be made by the umpires on the field only, with the batsmen being given the benefit of the doubt? Just asking........... About ST being given not-out in the first innings....... what a shocker, a proper sportsman would have walked, TV coverage showed that there was no bump, but that the ball carried cleanly and was caught fairly....... not-out???

  • on December 30, 2010, 17:16 GMT

    All this busines about the UDRS not being able to accurately judge ball trajectory or the amount of spin and bounce on Indian pitches is all a red herring. Let's take an example... An English former first class player, now an umpire has spent years playing and umpiring in county games. He's never played nor umpired anywhere else. He gets appointed to the ICC Elite Panel and his first test is at Mumbai. Now tell me how can he read the pitch any better than a machine that has been calibrated for the task. He can't. And anyway, if the machine makes mistakes at least they will be consistent mistakes and the same for both sides. And as we seen in the current SA v India series, that is not the case with human beings. I am not a SA supporter...I am simply a former umpire who wishes to see as many umpiring mistakes as possible eliminated from the game.

  • visualdp on December 30, 2010, 17:06 GMT

    @cricket_fan_1: " There was no UDRs in WI vs SL series last month (Sanga was happy with that)" . In which world mate???. Correction there was UDRS between SL vs WI & both sides happily used the system. So please make sure about that. Apart from that I believe Smith is spot on, ICC should take action about the system.

  • CrazyCricFan on December 30, 2010, 16:43 GMT

    BCCI and Indian team keep complaining about UDRS not being accurate when every other team already seemed to have matured at using the system already. It is the only good technology to avoid umpiring mishaps as of now. ICC should be bold and make UDRS a standard, instead of leaving it for boards to decide. There is no good reason why BCCI isn't accepting to use this, I start wondering if somewhere BCCI has a tie up with rival technology company :D

  • arnavred on December 30, 2010, 16:38 GMT

    Remember the decisions of alviro,amla.. in the first inngs in 1st test..they were given notout.. then y didnt u argue abt that.. If u have probs with decision,it should be India to worry..bcoz some umpires in the world like steve buckner and some others,even referees are against India.They have made some wrong decisions..and cost us matches.. but we never cried like u abt that...c'mmon..grow up and play some ckt..

  • on December 30, 2010, 16:37 GMT

    smith kindly please stop these kind of comments just agree that you lost to a team which made a great come back with out a single practice match on your land ok . India too faced some wrong umpiring decisions but these all are part of game but i m not saying that it should be some what like Sydney test . India is still lacking some power in their bowling department but i can say one thing confident that in a cinema of world cricket Indian cricket team is hero (for sure) we play sportively we don`t inter fear or sledge or play unfair game .we do sledge in some scenarios where our patience is tested one thing more buddies India is the only nation to produce most of top rated players in every department. i do agree we are presently lacking a good consistent bowler but we have that potential bowlers who can turn match at any moment. Chak de India

  • simpleguy2008 on December 30, 2010, 16:30 GMT

    UDRS a big yes from my side yes i am against those bad decision given by umpire i want UDRS from now for all test nation countries.

  • simpleguy2008 on December 30, 2010, 16:24 GMT

    I dont know why these carzy mssg i am in favour of UDRS it has to be used in all test matches and one day and T20 also so I request to ICC to implement this UDRS SYSTEM to all test nation from this JANUARY.

  • on December 30, 2010, 16:21 GMT

    @Vijay_Phanidhar on (December 30 2010, 15:40 PM GMT)

    "What goes around comes around. India was on the receiving end in Sydney test with bad decisions so they were due to win a match with decisions favoring them :p.. actually this test was not as horrible as Sydney test. To balance the atrocities of Sydney test they need to win one more test relying on umpires ;)"

    How can you be so misguided. To get an incorrect decision that goes against you followed by one that goes in your favour does not even things up.. On the contrary it is two mistakes and as we all know, two wrongs do not make a right. Matches should be won and lost on the skills or otherwise of the players not by the mistakes of the officials.

  • RameshSubramaniam on December 30, 2010, 16:09 GMT

    UDRS is a good technology but not proven one. ICC should be made black and white, when third umpire can uphold the decision or when he can change the decision. Also it is still not clear how hawk-eye finds the trajectory of the ball in different condition and pitches. For example, hawk-eye shows ball is going well over stumps. What it would have shown if it is in Mumbai and if the ball pitched in the same area as Durban?

  • Alexk400 on December 30, 2010, 16:07 GMT

    As i said before it is wrong to use Players to appeal. Because it makes players in charge of a decision that haunts them later if they make a mistake. It is rather group of people in each team that can appeal. I rather see Each team coach appeal than players. Each team also has to have only 2 or 3 appeals because we do not want people appealing all the time. That is the only change i want in UDRS. Remove player from making decision on the field. We want player to win by skill of cricket not quick brain in tough situation. Some are skilled in when to apply. Batsman sometime lose context and use up all the team appleals. We need coaches make that decision in terms of the team.

  • immortalsidu on December 30, 2010, 15:48 GMT

    y r the majority speakin ill about the bcci? as some1 below said, the udrs issue wud have never stemmed had rsa won the game. u need to understand that the technology is not cheap..its bloody expensive thats the reason even in the world cup it will be used only in the later stages..India played well and they deserved to win..rsa underestimated India and were over confident..having said that it was one of the best matches ive seen..great competitive cricket.. lookin forward to capetown

  • Vijay_P_S on December 30, 2010, 15:40 GMT

    What goes around comes around. India was on the receiving end in Sydney test with bad decisions so they were due to win a match with decisions favoring them :p.. actually this test was not as horrible as Sydney test. To balance the atrocities of Sydney test they need to win one more test relying on umpires ;)

  • on December 30, 2010, 14:23 GMT

    after seeing the title i know the sort of comments iam gonna see for this article but to my surprise quite a no of indians are supporting the UDRS

  • on December 30, 2010, 14:19 GMT

    No point in SA complaining. If what is written in the article is true, as host nation CSA had the option of insisting on the use of UDRS but bowed to BCCI who, as we know, are vehemently opposed to it. It just goes to prove that if you want to win, give the opposition nothing. Why India are so opposed to the UDRS I can never understand. All the antis will come up with all sorts of theories, about and that's all they are.. unproven theories and speculation. In support of the UDRS I quote just a few examples...Iin the current Eng v Aus test series several incorrect decisions have been overturned by the UDRS and batsmen who would have been out using the umpire's judgement, were correctly reprieved. In contrast in the SA v India series several howlers were made by the umpires and batsmen who should not have been given out, were and vice versa. Agreed the UDRS system may not be perfect, and may well never be, but facts prove that it's an improvement on the human in many cases.

  • kinkycad on December 30, 2010, 12:38 GMT

    When India had UDRS in a series they made very poor use of it. Indian players appear to be a poor judge of whether someone is really out. Their board's stance on it is self serving to help maintain their current no. 1 position and is not in the best interests of cricket.I think nearly all strong test nations will refuse to play against them in future without it with the possible exceptions of Sri Lanka who are desperate for test match cricket. The Ashes series has proved how good it is now. With the cricket test world champ in the wins it will be used in all matches otherwise India will not be eligible to play. India will get used to it as time goes by and umpire decisions will play little part in effecting results... as it should be. India's glorious win here helped by a brilliant Laxman innings is tainted whether their fans like it or not.

  • Kumaranuj on December 30, 2010, 12:25 GMT

    UDRS is the only technology avaliable currently, and ICC has decide it to use then why not make it mandatory for every series? In India media is making more hype when one or two Indian batsmen were given out incorrectly and India went to lose that match, then why BCCI & Indian player hasitate to use it. Still Indian media making hype that Tendulker was suffer more from incorrect umpiring. I must say that Indian cricketer are affraid that if UDRS is used then they are going to lose the matches.

  • on December 30, 2010, 12:08 GMT

    @Graem Smith: Stop Giving excuses.....You have done every possible thing you could off the filed...You didnt provide any practice match, you didnt even allow the team to visit the pitch before the match, you didnt provide any quality fast bowler for practice. When you come to India and couple of balls take sharp turn..u start crying saying underprepared pitch...wat pitch u have prepared for Durban....Score of both teams justify the fact....and when u lost...u started crying for UDRS.....remember this team scored 400+ in the 2nd innings at centurion too..... better focus on ur team rather giving silly excuses.......and before criticising someone like sachin 1st be 10% of sachin..then shout

  • SABD on December 30, 2010, 11:00 GMT

    Davis "double ton" helps umpires level series 1-1.

  • Alexk400 on December 30, 2010, 10:57 GMT

    Mike heiseman had GREAT IDEA on UDRS. i heard it commentary. People should listen to his ideas. He said we take UDRS out of players. I agree. Cricket is not NFL. It is different game. We need spotters or agents for each team , they tell the coaches to appeal if they think there is a dubious decision.

    Involving players to appeal is a BAD IDEA.

  • Alexk400 on December 30, 2010, 10:55 GMT

    Sachin is a BIG LBW candidate. And he do not want to get OUT. He is reaping rewards with his status as Best batsman. BCCI and sachin are cowards. I am indian and i do not like sachin. He never play for india he only play for his averages. He is utter waste of time in my view. He is sole and only reason BCCI refuse to use UDRS.

  • KunzMan on December 30, 2010, 10:14 GMT

    I am amazed at how some people are against UDRS because it is not 100% accurate. Atleast it saves batsmen from umpiring bloopers that cricket has witnessed frequently. It just cannot be optional for teams. Either have it as a standard or dont. Fullstop. N FYI.... i saw somone of the opinion that "batsman should be given out if no shot is offered, even though the ball is missing the stumps." Better get a grip of cricket before opinion pal. Test matches will be reduced to highlights if you were the administrator.

  • on December 30, 2010, 10:10 GMT

    I think the biggest factor preventing countries from adopting UDRS is the fact that they're only allowed 2 misuses. Just 2 chances!

    It takes time to adapt to any new technology, and the captain is likely to make wrong calls initially. But it hurts to know that they have been turned down, and then a real opportunity comes by. A definite wicket, if only I could appeal. What do you do then? Nothing. Just say "Oops, I used up my 2 mistakes. Now I'll just have to accept anarchy and move on."

    The technology is superb (way better than human eye judgment), and there is no logic in saying that "it halts the momentum of the game." So do sight-screen adjustments and drinks breaks right?

    There were no qualms in using camera technology for run-outs, so why the hesitance to use it for close catches, lbws and faint nicks?

    A single decision can change the outcome of the game. Soccer and tennis are using technology seamlessly. Why does cricket have to be clumsy about it?

  • samir1969 on December 30, 2010, 10:10 GMT

    UDRS .... Oh no.

    We want to see more & more runs from Laxman , Sachin etc

  • on December 30, 2010, 10:09 GMT

    Simple case for using UDRS... Many wrong decisions have been rightly overturned on appeal using UDRS (several in the Aus v Eng series alone) whereas without UDRS many wrong decisions have resulted in batsmen being given out when they should not have been or given not out when they ought to have been. (several in the last SA v India test). That's proof enough that UDRS reduces the chances of getting an incorrect decision and surely, that's the whole point of it.

  • sonofchennai on December 30, 2010, 10:09 GMT

    People are missing a point....Don worry about the accuracy and all other bull shit...Human mind works in a similar way...We are just trying to get the howlers out of the game...i don care about marginal decisons...because the way UDRS works is there should be enouf conviction to over rule the umpires...So the marginal decisions wud still stay...and we need to understand that this greatly helps the batsman. When there is a inside edge and he is given lbw, this can be referred and overturned...Why the heck there is hue and cry for some thing good...Atrocious on the part of Indians..

  • vxttemp on December 30, 2010, 10:06 GMT

    Smith- You better cry after consulting ponting. How many times ponting cried over the UDRS decisions. Before the start of the series he was very arrogant. What happened to him now? Blaming UDRS. And where is de-villiers asking for a target of 250+ and then loosing the test. It doesn't matter now whether india wins or looses. But u guys are all-out for 136. Remember that when u open you mouth next time.

  • sonofchennai on December 30, 2010, 10:02 GMT

    Those who defend Sachin and MS's decision not to use UDRS are stupid enough. period..And the example MS gave is ridiculous...We don ahve to worry about how many decisions UDRS ll give right but the wrong decsions that are made now ll be removed. that itself is the success of the system...Jus because we did not get benefitted out of the system once, we cant fault the system...BCCI sucks in thsi regard so as Sachin and MS...utter nonsense...how cricketng brains as these guys coud not think the positves of the system...

  • harshalb on December 30, 2010, 9:56 GMT

    notice pakistani names taking pot shots at india over UDRS? same guys were betting on SA victory after the weather affected first test but had to rub their noses in dirt. they are noticeably silent that india has done well inspite of losing both the tosses and thus getting the worst of the weather and the pitch. these people are mad because their own team is rubbish and full of fixers so that explains the frustration. while everyone agrees that UDRS is a good thing, i am unable to understand how can there be people so ignorant about cricket that they actually write things like only one team i.e. india benefits by not having UDRS. perhaps this is the level of cricket knowledge in india's neighborhood country?

  • the_predator on December 30, 2010, 9:55 GMT

    Some points about UDRS : When referral is made about a LBW decision the on field uppires only check with the third umpire whether the ball has piched in line or not AND it has hit the bats man in line or not. Based on these two inputs the on field umpires will cancell or retain the original decision. Bounce is not the one which is checked. this is because it is not possible to predict the bounce of the ball accurately. In depnds of the pace + bounceof the pitch as well.

    So according to this the devilliars LBW would not have been cancelled at all. this is because the ball piched in middle stump and didi hit him on middle stump and in the knee hight.

    Boucher LBW would have been ruled out probably. But south africans need to use their BAT rather than PAD. It is weel known that if the batsman does not offer shot umpires tends to give it in bowlers favor.

    UDRS comes handy only when you have BAT-PAD catch , a faint edge etc.

  • on December 30, 2010, 9:49 GMT

    All playing nations should refuse to play India ANYWHERE unless they fall into line with the rest of the cricket world. How can a 3rd world country be allowed to dictate call the shots ? Shambolic !

  • shri619 on December 30, 2010, 9:26 GMT

    cricket has history of over 130 years in that period evrything has changed but job of umpires remain same using technology is deffintly benifited the game but you not remove umpire from the game.they are also human's can make mistake's and technology is also oprated by human.so still using technology you can make mistake.....so it's better to go with onfeild umpire's to take decision. as he can give right decision 8 out of 10 times...... you can use tv umpire for run out and close cathes but for lbw umpire is best and will remain best......... so i will go with umpire's for lbw decision.......

  • Seether1 on December 30, 2010, 9:16 GMT

    @chokkashokka: Please stop making racial comments!!!

  • on December 30, 2010, 9:16 GMT

    @paramjit das: wat r u talking about have u every confirmed that UDRS is 100% accurate..How can say like that a team won a match becoz of absence of UDRS..

  • shri619 on December 30, 2010, 9:06 GMT

    hummm... smith saying we lost match becoz of bad umpiring. if all that decision,s wuold have favour in sa side and if they have won the matchthen still he would favour of udrs. simply he has lost the match and saying anything so that media will not show how bad sa had played.....smith is like ponting always cheating and not accepting that ind has played good cricket..

  • KAIRAVA on December 30, 2010, 8:28 GMT

    @SilentVoyager: Eventhough racism ended in 1991 with the admission of South Africa into cricket, I feel "anti-racism" still in cricket,i.e., Umpires of coloured origin (brown and black) think twice before giving a white batsmen out and likewise white umpires also behave the same when it comes to giving coloured batsmen out. But when say a country like India is batting in a match, coloured umpires (black & brown) for eg: Steve Bucknor, Asoka De Silva, etc feel as if it is their ultimate responsibility and birth right to give the Indian batsmen out and they feel that by doing so they are psychologically pleasing the opposition white players and negating the possibility of being partial and favouring their own colour team and thereby bowing to peer pressure. This happens vice-versa too and is the stark reality of world cricket today.

  • fadms on December 30, 2010, 8:13 GMT

    If there are any whiners in this world it is the Indians. Winning by fluke.....and relying on bad umpiring decisions. Come Cape Town and you will have your tails between your legs. GO PROTEAS!!!!

  • HostileJ on December 30, 2010, 8:11 GMT

    Guys, UDRS uses 4 ways to judge whether someone is out or not.The advantage always remain with the batsman and your beloved Sachin will make many more runs.The problem is that whilst Sachin will benefit,guys like Bhajji will not benefit because quite frankly,he buys some wickets by the way he appeals.I'm not saying its never out and yes,he is a great bowler,but there has to be consistency for both teams!You cant just get marginal decisions because your name is Harbhajan or Zaheer.its gotta be out.U know very well that the past 2 tests could have been very different had UDRS been used.examples:Harris vs Sachin in the 1st test:hitting in line,hitting off,given not out!Steyn vs Khan 2nd test,stone dead plumb,given not out!Bhajji vs AB,going over the top,marginal decision,given out!Zaheer vs Boucher,missing off,going over the top,given out!Its only fair to both teams.I just get the feeling India dont want UDRS cos marginal decisions always go their way.In the same breath,hotspot is a must!

  • Arlecchino on December 30, 2010, 7:56 GMT

    I wonder if all of the "experts" here know how the thechnology works? It seems to me that some of the criticism is based on "logical guesswork" which is not how technology works. I must agree with Smith's logic however and cannot understand why there is no conformity. Why use the technology in the Ashes series and not when the number one side is playing the number two side for the leadership of World Cricket? The answer is simple BCCI rules OK!!! The technology showed that Steve Davis got it wrong on 3 occasions. Is he a bad umpire? No, but he should be allowed the same assistance afforded the umpires standing in the Ashes series.

  • SanthoshIyer on December 30, 2010, 7:45 GMT

    When South Africa wins, Graeme Smith has no problems with the decisions. When they start losing he has problems. Umpires are bound to make mistakes. UDRS is absolutely not 100% correct. I believe only in Hotspot. As a avid cricket watcher myself, I cant understand people trust Hwak-eye.How can it judge the ball is going above the stumps or hitting the stumps. How can that predict where the ball is moving, approaching etc etc... Such a stupid technology which has no logic at all. Instead the Umpires can take a call say they can review their decisions when in doubt. They can be given two choices per innings to make a correct decisions. Nowadays batsman are not leaving the crease even they nick the ball to the keeper or even for that matter into the slips.They wait for the Umpire to raise the dreaded finger. Even for PLUMB LBW's player's are asking for review which eventually questions the Umpire's credibility. Sad Cricket has gone to that level.

  • on December 30, 2010, 7:31 GMT

    hawkeye judgement of bounce is awful

  • Honeybunny on December 30, 2010, 7:31 GMT

    Smith has to be rude on something or the other, his comments are meaningless. When Indian lost the 1st test, he was all over Indian team and Bajji. Team Indian bounced back with those pathetic comments completely on them, the way they came out was in a grate style. Smith has got nothing to complain about team India (which he looks to be searching desperately) so he is taking URDS which was not chosen by BCCI. If he thinks his team Ranks 2nd they have to play natural game, not computer cricket. If the team has to be on top play without any new technology involved in the game. Sow your guts. Indians are No.1 side without using URDS. Cricket is a gentlemen's game, play as it Smith. Don't search for issues to deal with, sort out the mistakes committed in the game by players than the umpires. "LEARN FROM CAPTAIN COOL DHONI, STRARUS" who are not much bothered about URDS

  • on December 30, 2010, 7:09 GMT

    Indians r cry babies. If they dare to play fair they should agree to play with UDRS. Just because they had a bad experience in sri lanka doesnt mean they sholdnt learn from their mistakes. they should change thir stance........

  • the_blue_android on December 30, 2010, 7:07 GMT

    Anyone who thinks AB would have won the game for them needs to get their head examined...You can't win test matches by padding up against 5 deliveries heading towards stumps every over. He would have been out in an over or two.

  • Sameer-hbk on December 30, 2010, 7:06 GMT

    Someone here said umpires are hesitant to send Sachin off?? Well, thats a great compliment for the little guy... So next time he is bowled he can also put the bail back on and say much like W. G. Grace said "They came to see me bat, not you bowl". Maybe umpires feel the same! :))

  • on December 30, 2010, 7:04 GMT

    ...interesting seeing which comments get approved by the moderators and which ones don't. There was nothing wrong, in my opinion, with my previous post yet it has not appeared. Bias?

  • itoria on December 30, 2010, 7:02 GMT

    well the only problem i feel with using available technology is that we shud use fully and not for only 4 tiems per side....coem on...we want to make use of technology...we r not playin here "kaun banega crorepati"and using three life lines per contestent.

  • gagguv on December 30, 2010, 7:01 GMT

    It is funny when losers resort to such tactics. SA gained from this "WONDERFUL" UDRS when Smith was given NOT OUT though he was OUT against England. Smith went on to score hundred and England lost. Recently, umpires and 3rd umpire gave KP not out. Ponting thinks he is GOD and so he is right, argues with umpires. Whats the use of technology then it doubts persist? Till date in case of bum catches or likewise catches, this technology is conclusive. So why beating about the bush? Moreover why insist for UDRS or give 2 or 3 chances to every team. Why not give the 3rd umpire power to overrule dubious decisions??

  • on December 30, 2010, 6:54 GMT

    For heavens sake people! When are you going to get it into your skulls that hawkeye works equally well with true pitches and pitches with variable bounce and turn? With a very high frame rate, it accurately determines where the ball pitches and where it strikes the pad. The number of frames between these two points determines the speed at impact. The trajectory and height are easily calculated. The only other consideration is gravity, which is a constant. Given the prediction is over a couple of metres at most, the accuracy is reliable, especially with the "umpire's call" rule. The nature of the pitch is utterly irrelevant because each ball is measured individually. As for all you SRT fans out there, get some perspective. He is just an ordinary man who is particularly good at wielding a 3lb piece of willow when others hurl a 156g leather ball at him. And he is filthy rich as a result. He doesn't need people treating him any differently from that.

  • sunil_just_loves_test_cricket on December 30, 2010, 6:51 GMT

    one more thing if you looked harris wicket where he was bowled by Zaheer if he was hit on pad and appeal went down for LBW then if UDRS was used..I bet u u all will agree that hawk eye will show that ball will go over the stumps. But in actual case ball just clipped the top of stumps so UDRS is correct???There is still too much to deal with umpiring LBW decisions in my view at present as no solid tech is available even we dont have 3D images to view close catches that whether ball hit the ground first or fielders hand in these scenarios UDRS should not be used. Leave umpires to do the job if they fill that 3rd umpire is required then they should call it otherwise teams should not be allowed to use it. For example, these days umpires are themselves looking for 3rd umpires for No ball thats good. If umpirs has doubt that the ball is no ball he is referring that acceptable as none is perfect..

  • sunil_just_loves_test_cricket on December 30, 2010, 6:45 GMT

    contd.as we see regularly ball ends up somwehere else in case of pacer after the full swing. There is a gap of say 1mtr between pad and wicket can hawk eye predict the swing or actual peak of the trajectory between this 1mtr by itself?If the batsmen is at backfoot then hawk eye can be useful but what if a batsmen is on frontfoot as every batsmen tends to do to counter swing batsmen used to put their leg outside off so that inline option should be nullified if UDRS is used in such situation can hawk eye predicts where will be ball after 1.5mtr?beacz in these cases ball hit on pad within less than .5mtr after pitching. Hawk eye cannot tell you what would be final case. So first improve technology then talk about UDRS. And well if Alviro after clearly hitting the bowl and caught on bhajji bowling still looking for umpire decision then what to say apply UDRS everytime?Batsmen should have some respect for the game for example Adam Gilchrist he never waits 4 umpr decson if he knows he edged

  • gilly007 on December 30, 2010, 6:38 GMT

    Ofcourse smith would not have complained as much if they won the match. The decisions impacted the result almost directly. Zaheer being plumb. The lead would have been much less. And AB and Boucher both going out to howlers how do you expect him to keep quiet. Too bad Cricket South Africa doesn't have BCCI's money. Else they could have threatened to cancel the series like one team did....

  • sunil_just_loves_test_cricket on December 30, 2010, 6:34 GMT

    No criticism for anyone that india is not using UDRS or SA is crying for it after loosing strange??Just talk about UDRS UDRS is not accurate u mind it or not without hotspot edges cannot be captured. Snickometer are not too accurate what if ball missed the bat and bat touched pad snickometer will show out so its not accurate as we saw in past. The most important part is LBW well hawk eye will never ever can judge LBW. How can a computerized trajectory can reveal the actual trajectory???In computerized trajectory there is no wind, moisture, heat nothing just assumed path !!!! Given the bowl is pitched somwhere. Think yourself there is great difference in a spinner trajectory which doesnot go to peak everytime as in case of a pacer. Spinner's trajectory bounds to dip with the given conditions it will not go to peak(as suggested by hawk eye) everytime. Also, what about swing can hawk predict the swing even after the ball passes the bat???As you have seen many times bowl ends up contd.....

  • kristee on December 30, 2010, 6:24 GMT

    I've read somewhere about a speculation involving a country's debacle in NZ in 2002, the nature of the pitches it was served when it went there again, and the long gap between.

    And I think the situation is more or less as worrisome as match/spot fixing, whatever it is.

  • Salim_123 on December 30, 2010, 6:21 GMT

    I do not understand why ICC is agreeing if India says no to UDRS. If a rule is made it has to be followed. If the case would have been reversed we would have seen in all indian TVS on the poor state of umpriring and how India lost the match because of poor umpiring. I can assure you India would have lost number of tests and may not have been no. 1 if the UDRS system was in place.

  • kristee on December 30, 2010, 6:20 GMT

    With umpires like Davis, even UDRS could not serve much purpose: I'm not sure if 2 reviews per innings would suffice. The reason why he turned down the appeal against Khan is best known only to him. In case he was right, lbw's very continuance as a mode of dismissal could quite be questionable. Cricket is fast becoming a joke. I don't think Australia during its peak could have unilaterally ensured that its matches would be exempted from a system that all other countries are ready to embrace. So, what matters is money, and not even your pure abilities. Umpires, of late, tend to be a bit reluctant to give decisions against some 'record-holders' (the prominent of them did get away recently even after 'not offering a shot'; the umpire might have thought it 'safe' to spare him ) and they seem too clever to miss this advantage.

  • m_kamb on December 30, 2010, 6:19 GMT

    if not to use technology then what is the purpose of showing replay????????????????????????????

  • sanzen on December 30, 2010, 5:51 GMT

    I totally agree with Smith and also I am a big fan of UDRS. But people get a life! why do you need to target Sachin always for anything. There are so many cricketers who don't want UDRS (Just wait and watch, even Ponting is going to oppose it). Are you people jealous that Sachin gets so much attention for a small thing he does compared to others. I agree things are blown out of proportion in case of Sachin. But is it his fault or is he asking for so much attention. Its the people who do it. Blame them. And I really really pity the people who think India is afraid of UDRS. These people have kept their sense aside and that's why don't understand, India too can become victim of bad decisions and has had become on couple of occasions. People just remember the latest events and not some previous series.

  • on December 30, 2010, 5:50 GMT

    i would like to see UDRS used for everything except LBWs using Hawkeye. Im not convinced, in fact most players arent convinced. Everyone, is making a huge deal about Devilliers decision. But the bottom line is that it hit him on middle stump, on the bottom role. 9 times out of 10 thats normally given in out. Even in Perth which is one of the bounciest wickets. But hawkeye shows it as a travesty of justice! There was also an interesting one a few years ago, where the batsmen let a ball go and it hit the top of the stumps (like Harris), for a test they showed how hawkeye would have showed the trejectory, and it calculated the ball sailing over the stumps.

    and just for the record, for every series people say that india would have lost with UDRS, i can think at least TWO they would have won.

  • on December 30, 2010, 5:47 GMT

    I think India should have one more bad experience like the famous Sydney in 2008 then they will realize the importance of UDRS.

  • DaredevilsUnlimited on December 30, 2010, 5:45 GMT

    I totally agree with Smith.s call for the referal system to be in place. Flat track bully BCCI with its financial clout should not be allowed to go this farof dictating terms on their whims and fancy. Toothless ICC headed by good for nothing politician cum administrator should lead the way to enforce the implementation of the referal system across all test playing countries

  • on December 30, 2010, 5:44 GMT

    Just a few years ago, everyone was screaming hoarse over "Umpire's decision is final" and one should respect the umpire's decision, and so on. After the Sydney test everyone lectured BCCI and the Indian team that umpire's deision is final no matter what, and it is against the spirit of the game to question the on field umpire.

    The moment BCCI changed its stance (following some dubious use of UDRS by the Indian captain), everyone is aiming for BCCI's head again. By the way, even the UDRS was not enough to convince Ponting in a recent Test match. What are you going to do next?

  • hoegaarden on December 30, 2010, 5:40 GMT

    @Phani Rajeev Peddi! punter's argument was out of frustration, nothing to do with UDRS being imperfect. Umpires call was spot-on and so was UDRS. however, punter was pointing at another spot which was way out of ball trajectory. And he apologized for it as well after seeing the video. Had you seen it yourself, you wouldnt be so ignorant, would you?

  • DINESHCC on December 30, 2010, 5:36 GMT

    When India lost the 1st test, it was the brilliance of SA bowling and batting. When SA lost the 2nd test, it was because of the non implementation of UDRS. During SA and ENG series UDRS was there. Whether SA won the series? To say something everyone taliking about UDRS. Can any one say that all the desisions given through UDRS are correct? Mr.Naveed Khan please watch NZ and Pak series and support your Pakistan team to win a game at least against NZ, WI, BD and Zimbabwe.

  • hoegaarden on December 30, 2010, 5:35 GMT

    Completely agree with Joe Yates and indiapunter... But who will implement it across the board? ICC? India is the ICC and India doesnt want it. Just look at what happened to WADA compliance... India didnt want to comply with WADA, when rest of the top teams had already complied to it... and ICC/WADA had to go back to drawing board to pacify India's concerns. Go Figure!

  • rdx155 on December 30, 2010, 5:26 GMT

    UDRS?? lol Can anybody tell me what's the use of umpires standing for hours on the ground? If UDRS is implemented, why should umpires waste their time & energy on the field? Let them relax & watch the match off the field. Let the third umpire judge all decisions with the help of UDRS & hawk-eye & snicko meter LMAO!! // Too much use of modern technology will make cricket an artificial game. Let it be natural, let it be as it is..

  • goldenSkY99 on December 30, 2010, 5:23 GMT

    AH In last match India cried over loosing toss and having to bat in worst condition, now in this match South Africa is crying over UDRS.Conclusion: No one likes loosing.

  • Jaggadaaku on December 30, 2010, 5:22 GMT

    India used UDRS once against SL where the TV umpire(SL Umpire) gave all Indian batsmen out besides, it was clearly looking not out on the screen. And all SL batsmen declared not-out where some of them looking out on the screen. So, since then, India learned a lesson that even if they accept UDRS, and use that, the third umpire does what he wants. And there is no punishment for wrong umpiring in cricket. There should be something like any umpire should apologize to the batsmen in the public at the end of the day if he involve in wrong decision. This kind of matter will decrease the rate of wrong umpiring, I think. Because people don't like to apologize all the time, and gradually, they would become more and more careful.

  • TheOldBat on December 30, 2010, 5:22 GMT

    I truly think it is SICK that there are once again more comments relating to the effect of UDRS on Tendulkar than on Cricket!. South Africans always bend over backwards to be accommodating and friendly and once again this has been the case for CSA to the detriment of our players. When players careers are on the line based on their performance too many comments are related the the risk to the careers of the umpires in relation to their decisions on Tendulkar. As a watcher of cricket for more than 50 years I know the problems of reliance on technology but over the past couple of years there are bigger problems of not using it. I agree with Graeme that it is vital that the ICC put their money where their mouth is and for once stand up and make a real decision. The system MUST be implemented everywhere and if necessary some way of financing Hot-Spot in the poorer countries must be found. It is simply not acceptable that the results like this week are overinfluenced by umpires.

  • on December 30, 2010, 5:21 GMT

    For all those who are questioning UDRS's effectiveness, please take some physics classes. Every model that predicts anything, can never be 100% accurate but if done well will pretty much always be better than a human umpire. Anyways I for one don't want to watch amazing cricket only for it to to be tainted by some bad decisions on the final day.

  • justk on December 30, 2010, 5:21 GMT

    UDRS is not fool proof. Becuase the umpire is from the home team. Recently in MCG test, KP was given not out with this UDRS, where as the replays were suggesting has nicked. It was a very thin edge, but then edge is an edge.

  • CricketFreud on December 30, 2010, 5:20 GMT

    BCCI rejects hawk-eye because its not reliable... hawk-eye trajectory prediction is good for games like tennis alright were the surface is even....... don't tell me hawk eye will be able to predict the bounce on a fifth day pitch especially when the ball hits a crack and the bowler uses a scrambled seam...

  • justk on December 30, 2010, 5:20 GMT

    @paramjitdas:even ashwell prince was out, but was given notout and this happened before villers and boucher's dismissal. And imagine,if prince was given out, it would have been pressure there. So don't lament that umpires cheated rsa. They were never comfortable against the bouncy turn of harbhajan due to which they were not able to score freely. And also, umpiring was not bad, because they confirmed whether kallis was out or not by checking sreesanths delivery if was a no ball or not,which is important in a high profile series like this. And sangakarra last year had blown the things out of proportion and nothing else. In that series so many decisions were turned against us also. The thing is that we dont speak it does not mean that we are not at the receiving end. And i do remember, that how much bad umpiring even indan team has suffered in the past, due to which they were labelled poor travellers. 1996 test,we were on the verge of 1 test victory,but umpires did not allow.

  • justk on December 30, 2010, 5:05 GMT

    @paramjitDas: Ok, still lamenting over the fact that india would have lost if UDRS was in place, well let me tell you then, that prince was already out prior to the AB villers, but was given not out..even the replays suggested tht it was plumb one, at that time, commentators said that it is difficult for the on filed umpires to judge these sort of things, now prince was not out and what if a tail would have hung with him their, it would have costed us the game. So i think, there is no need to discuss that bad decisions costed africa the game. And also, in lbw, if a batsman uses pad, then he will be always given out, that is more of a philosophy rather than a technique, because, he was unable to confuse the umpire. Zaheer and prince just offerd shots, and if they were offering shots, a doubt gets created that ball would not have hit the stump, but villers and bouchers simply used their pad, which means ball would or could have hit the stump. Even dravid is a big lbw candidateforthisreas

  • m_kamb on December 30, 2010, 5:01 GMT

    ok then there is no reason to refuse udrs,coz its only 5 times out of 100 is wrong them what about umpires who are more than 50% wrong.dhoni is playing politics in game just for his own

  • bigwonder on December 30, 2010, 4:58 GMT

    Wow, lack of UDRS is the main reason for SA's loss. Isn't this the same reasoning as India saying we lost due to bouncy pitches? Accept your defeat and move on. India too has received its fair share of bad umpire decision. Smith should watch out for Sreesanth bouncers in the last test and should stop worrying about UDRS.

  • on December 30, 2010, 4:56 GMT

    Not only Smith even Sngakkara also recommended the UDRS particularly against India, as international captains they have realized the influence bias of umpiring towards BCCI and India. Because of this any win of India are not well received by the cricketing public. The blame should not go to Shachine but to Dhoni, as he is not a intelligent captain like other leading international captains to use a system cleaver. He is just a ordinary man with basic intelligent but lot of luck

  • Cricinfo_dasan on December 30, 2010, 4:52 GMT

    I don't understand why top team like India has to face this debate? I don't know what stops BCCI to approve URDS. I believe that India can very well win test matches with their talent and not always with the help of on field umpires ( err decisions in favor of India). "BCCI", please get over with this commanding behavior, else people like Indiapunter will continue to comment like this and credit for the real victory is lost

  • on December 30, 2010, 4:46 GMT

    It is not surprising that Only Indians are opposed to UDRS, not all but a majority of them. There were 4 incorrect decisions (glaring) three by Umpire Davis and One bt Rauf. Three of the wrong decisions favored India and had a direct impact on result of the game. India beat Sri-Lanka because according to Sangakara 7 out of 10 incorrect decisions went against Sri-Lanka. Is India Test #1 in fair game? I am 100% convinced that Indians do not care about the fairness, they are happy if they win fair or not!

  • on December 30, 2010, 4:41 GMT

    India should allow UDRS in all matches... that is the only way to prove the critics down that they deserve to be Number 1 Test team without the umpire help.

    I agree with Umpires being a bit reluctant to send off big names like Lara, Sachin, Sanath and even Ponting... truth is we are all human... when some one brings a bias free technology to the world, why not embrace... did any one say no to the scientific calculator just cause you can do the math in your head?

    BCCI is just showing their influence over ICC and as usual are arrogant. We should get Dharmasena to umpire more often in india matches and get Sachin(India's Demi God) out for a duck when he is not... then the whole of Hindustan will wanna play with the computer... LOL

  • truebleue_cricfan on December 30, 2010, 4:40 GMT

    Ok, India benefitted from the umpiring howlers in this test and that takes away a bit of gloss from the victory. But what goes around comes around, so India will also be at the receiving end, perhaps in the very next test. So there is no point in arguing that India always benefits from not using UDRS. SA probably wouldnt have won even if UDRS was used in this test. What is sad to see is that bashing India has become a bit of a pastime for cricket viewers, not to mention some of the players themselves. This is in very poor taste. Well, all I can say is that it is a nasty world that we live in.

    As regards to UDRS, I think it would be great for cricket and hope India embraces it, if not for anything else but to stop the thomases from doubting.

  • landl47 on December 30, 2010, 4:30 GMT

    I'll admit right away that UDRS is not going to make every decision the right one. Very faint edges and marginal LBWs might still be wrong and run outs can't always be judged with 100% accuracy depending on where the cameras are, where the players are and whether the batsman slid his bat over the line between frames. Low catches are also difficult for a two-dimensional picture to capture properly. However, what I will say is that UDRS increases the number of correct decisions and that is surely what should always be the aim, don't you think? In the recent Australia/England test we saw a number of incorrect decisions reversed, including Prior being given out off a no-ball, when the umpire made the call for a review. I'd like to see all dismissals reviewed automatically by the third umpire, with not out decisions reviewed at the field umpires' discretion. Within a couple of years I bet that over 99% of decisions would be right.

  • on December 30, 2010, 4:23 GMT

    Another victory for BCCI for refusing to take UDRS as otherwise we could imagine the results if possible wrong decisions were reversed. Sachine is a great player but should give special thanks to BCCI for not accepting the systems as his 43th, 46th 47th and even 50th tons are very lucky once. For an example if the system was not used in Ashes it would have been a different story by now. BCCI should now fight against the neutral umpires in order to retain no 1 position in the long time and also to Push Sachine to get (probably) 100 tons.

  • on December 30, 2010, 4:04 GMT

    No matter what INDIA has won and will win the next too.

  • BMayuresh on December 30, 2010, 4:03 GMT

    The objection of MSD and BCCI has put up on UDRS seems to be valid. We have experienced the same in Ashes as well. Use of technology should be well-come only if it is going to help without any conditions applied. UDRS is still not a full-proof technology, it does have bugs so its wise to improve it first and then implement it. About wrong decisions... well thats part of game sometimes India benefits and at times is also at a loss.

  • on December 30, 2010, 3:55 GMT

    use the UDRS for edges ,run outs, no balls and other stuff and not LBW. The UDRS do not account for late swings. The decision of boucher is perfect example . left arm across and angling and pitching on off stump and swinging in and hitting pads is OUT. Hawkeye just follows the line and trajectory of the ball and showed it hitting slightly outside the off stump. Leave these to the umpires. USE UDRS but not for LBW unless to clarify if it is bat pad or pad bat.

  • ruserious on December 30, 2010, 3:53 GMT

    I know Indians dominate these forums and half the time come up with half baked arguments, but just look around you. The entire world is using this system. Do you guys really think everyone else is stupid? Even if the world buys your argument that UDRS is not 100% accurate, it is at least more accurate than what the on field umpires can come up with. The kind of bogus mistakes umpires make have been eliminated in a lot of games these days thanks to UDRS. Obviously the only team that benefits from not having it is India which either buys out the umpires or intimidates them to favor them. Half the games that they 'win' are due to umpire errors.

  • Saxo on December 30, 2010, 3:42 GMT

    Yes, Mr. Smith, it is poor umpiring that lost you the match! If only you had URDS to support you along with winning the toss, a home field adantage, greentop with bounce and seam movement, world's best pace attack, a visiting team that didn't sledge, but wouldn't complain if you sledge, and the visitor's best bowler doesn't play ... then you would win handily. You proved that in the 1st Test.

    It is obvious that Smith can dish but can't take (Stephen Fleming, Steve Waugh, etc. showed that). He should tone it down and let his onfield play speak for his team instead of spouting off about how India is not #1.

    Based on this performance, one could conclude that: 1. had SA not won the toss, they wouldn't have won the 1st Test (likely outcome would be a draw) 2. had Zaheer Khan played, they wouldn't have won the 1st Test (likely draw) 3. had Zaheer played and if India won the toss, India would likely have won the 1st Test also.

  • Fast_Track_Bully on December 30, 2010, 3:36 GMT

    ha ha ha...excuses... excuses...

  • on December 30, 2010, 3:35 GMT

    (contd)...implement udrs in the India England test matches or at least raise a hue and cry if it isn't implemented. Then we shall see how good Indians truly are on swinging pitches( although English wickets don't favour bounce, I think most Indian batsmen are rubbish against the swinging ball). I can see swann and Anderson and zaheer demolishing the batsmen. May the best team win, which I think is England currently.

    To all the people who think tendulkar would benefit most if the udrs is implemented because he gets a lot of marginal decisions against him that's a thing of the past.They( Indians) get decisions in their favour nowadays mostly because they cry like babies when they don't ( a feature which has increased in strength since the infamous scg test). Secondly, don't forget if the decision is marginal , the umpires decision originally will not be overturned. So I can't really see tendulkar get more favourable decisions than he is currently ( which believe me, is plenty

  • on December 30, 2010, 3:33 GMT

    We should follow tennis, and implement UDRS(Hawk-eye) uniformly. India is a victim of poor referrels in UDRS in SL series. They are so scared now. May be they should give it another try.

  • on December 30, 2010, 3:26 GMT

    Fact: Cricket South Africa wanted to use UDRS... BCCI refused Fact: India is the only country so opposed to UDRS Fact: Indian bookies have always been a problem in cricket

    Conspiracy Theory: BCCI and Indian bookies are one and the same....

  • on December 30, 2010, 3:24 GMT

    UDRS is flawed. The BCCI needs to decide how exactly they want to reform the system to make it work.

    UDRS needs to be used only in the rarest of the rare cases, only for howlers. The number of allowable unsuccessful reviews should be reduced from 2 to 1 per innings. There needs to be leeway for an umpire's call. HawkEye is a mathematical model after all, so it should not be taken as a perfect indicator. The respect for the umpire's judgment must be left intact.

    Already for whether the ball has hit on the pads or not in line of the stumps, there is a margin of some centimeters that is the umpire's call. The same should be the case for the ball going on to hit the stumps as well. If it looked plumb to the naked eye, the umpire gives it out and the ball is shown going a few centimeters over middle stump, the decision should remain out.

    With more leeway for the umpire and only 1 unsuccessful review, abuse of the system will be greatly reduced. Until then, NO to the current flawed UDRS!

  • simz504 on December 30, 2010, 3:20 GMT

    Graeme the less you speak, the smarter you sound. As Ian Bishop said during the Eng Wi series recently, you cant use URDS as a trial at the international level to see whether it works or not. The system has to been nearly perfect or then whats the point and be perfected at the firstclass level. Also, the whole issue is around money and the expense of hotspot cameras truth be told. The boards wont pay the extra cost, nor will the broadcasters. The ICC should foot the bill, but they wont either. You should be crying to your board and not the media Graeme. I wonder had India been on the wrong side of the decisions, and had India lost the match, would Graeme be so vocal and passionate about insistin on using URDS? (its a rhetorical question guys, as you can bet he wouldnt even mention the words URDS, let alone cry about its non use.) Graeme worry about ZAHEER some more and little less about things outside of your control, as that would be illogical.

  • on December 30, 2010, 3:19 GMT

    Whether Sachin likes UDRS or not is a matter of speculation on part of IndianPunter. However, we do know that Sehwag favors UDRS. But the real push in India will have to come from the bowlers - and Dhoni will change his tune when his bowlers are at the receiving end of these howlers the next time in a crucial contest.

  • on December 30, 2010, 3:18 GMT

    (contd).... He also rejected the need for India to embrace udrs so that fairer decisions are made for every team by saying " umpires are paid to do a job in the middle. If this Is the way that umpires continue to make decisions then we would have to embrace udrs no matter whether we want it or not". This was similar to saying " mr davies, u r from aus, surely u know what happened to bucknor after the scg test ? We are watching you. One more bad decision and your job could be toast". This is enough to put pressure on a good umpire, but not a great umpire. Bring in umpires who are not scared by political powers of India or their no 1 ranking ( a joke in itself) and bring in umpires like aleem dar and Ian Gould to officiate in India's test matches from now on. Both are neutral umpires and probably the best currently. It is also good to notice England are growing as a test playing nation and as a political power( after their spot fixing role) and their media would strongly force bcci to...

  • PACERONE on December 30, 2010, 3:15 GMT

    Each team only has 2 challenges.Most time by the time it gets late in a game they might be used up by earlier batsmen or bowlers at the start an inning. The idea that the ball is bouncing over the stumps is ridiculous.If that be the case why did the batsman not let the ball go instead of playing and missing. Lbw should be left to the umpires or checked only for edges. Smith was so confident after the first test...did not hear him call for UDRS then. SA are bullies when conditions favour them...if it is equal they will choke.

  • harshalb on December 30, 2010, 3:11 GMT

    mr.smith i want discussion on weather also. the first test was solely decided by the impossible pitch on the first day. the toss decided the match. so is india complaining? the fact is all such discussions should take place before the series, not after you get a couple of bad decisions. on the other hand, if these decisions had gone against india then india would have demanded removal of umpire davis and threatened to abandon the tour. the indias fans here would have been crying horse over how umpiring affected the match result. UDRS is a MUST but mr.smith must force his own board to be strong rather than wait for ICC. AND MR.DHONI, once again you appeared on TV giving SILLY excuses about refusing UDRS. please we are not idiots, we dont think you are wiser than all the captains of other countries. stop being idiotic on TV and support UDRS because we fans are losing patience with your nonsese.

  • on December 30, 2010, 3:07 GMT

    Certainly, it is wise to go for UDRS. For Mr.Greame Smith, yes, three decisions went against his team, and they 'might have' cost dearly, but who knows? Ind would still have won the match, because they have created immense pressure in the opposition. I think, let's not discuss what UDRS could have an impact on the result of this particular test; it would be an insult to the efforts of players who fought to win the match. I think every team has had a fair share of good luck and bad luck by having not used UDRS. I'm going back to a drawn test between Ind-SA (20th Jan 1997,Johannesburg). This test, Ind would have won hands down had Ashwell Prince been given out behind stumps - it required no technology help - even Prince himself would have liked to walk back, but he did not, and then, weather interfered later and play had to be stopped, the test was drawn. I am sure, lots of people like me are still surprised, how Prince not walked back himself? Bring UDRS on!!

  • on December 30, 2010, 2:59 GMT

    Sangakkara also asked for UDRS before and after the tests against India, because all the marginal decisions goes in the favour of India.Dilshan got 2 howlers in the same match while the likes of Sachin,Sehwag keeps on getting favourable deicions...India is not playing fair cuz all the other teams in the world use UDRS

  • swarzi on December 30, 2010, 2:56 GMT

    If I were Dale Steyn, and I heard that India was coming to South Africa to play test cricket, and that certain Indian players and the BCCI were objecting to the use of the UDRS system, which is the 'fairest' adjudication system we have seen in the game so far, and my cricket board had to agree to their objections, I would have lead a strike with my bowling colleagues for the series . It is rather unfair for certain cricketing jurisdictions that know they have some clout and say in what transpires in cricket these days to take so much advantage of the less privileged ones. We all saw on TV how the first test was prolonged beyond its time, because the UDRS system was not in commission and even worst what happened in the second test! Could I ask a contributor from India here, when does the IPL start this year?

  • krantiviswas on December 30, 2010, 2:53 GMT

    everybody is jumping because SA lost.. and they feel they lost because there is no UDRS. Remember Devillers not offered Shot... he should be given out in any case. MR INDIAPUNTER.. Sachin has given out in Newzealand when he is not offered shot.. The ball was a feet away out side the off stump..and one more thing, Sachin is the one who got out many times for marginal decissions.. He is the only person who got out for "Shoulder before Stumps". That all Gr8 umpiring in your sense.. If u dont like Sachin, keep it inside.. U r Speakin as if Sachin ruling ICC.. ICC met with all boards & captains and decided that before start of series boards should decide about using UDRS... why dint SMith cried then and doing it now? Smith lost it because, on a green pitch they cant score 150 also.. He was telling they should have scored more on 1st test if they batted on 1st day.. they wouldnt have scored 50 there with the current batting they have... Only GEM in SA is Steyn.

  • Rogue777 on December 30, 2010, 2:48 GMT

    If UDRS weren't absent Sachin wouldn't have got his 50th test century. He was plumb LBW to Harris. Then in 2nd test both AB and Boucher would not have being given out LBW and India would have LOST the test. No wonder India do not want UDRS. The thing is no one likes a bully who does not play FAIR! Do you know why every other country is ok with it? Because they would rather play fair. They don't want to use money to win matches. By the way the question shouldn't be whether UDRS is 100% accurate. There is no technology that is 100% accurate anyone with half a brain would know that, The point is that it increases the accuracy when it is used. The only reason a team don't want to use it is because they are cheats.

  • Hindh on December 30, 2010, 2:45 GMT

    The funny thing is SA tried TO BOUNCE INDIA OUT but the image of the series will be KALLIS ARCHING back and getting out for a snorter from sreesanth. WHAT A COMEBACK INDIA......... TRUE CHAMPS...

  • cricket_fan_1 on December 30, 2010, 2:36 GMT

    Look at the MCG test, there was an on field argument between Ricky and Dar, inspite of all the technologies used UDRS/hotspot. Dravid was not out in the 1st test and was given out. This is part and parcel of the game. If the umpires target a player or a team in a series then its very visible. It has not been the case so far in this series. There was no UDRS in Pak vs SA series last month (why was Smith not complaining). There was no UDRs in WI vs SL series last month (Sanga was happy with that). There is no UDRS in Pak vs NZL series. Stop blaming BCCI for not using UDRS. Captains will say things according to situations just to hide their failures. 1st of all, the captains need to be consistent before asking the officials to be consistent.

  • ummy on December 30, 2010, 2:36 GMT

    Just when I thought India deserved to be number 1 when I read that they got lucky winning the test by a few wrong decisions that actually cost SA the test match and series. I think I will hold that thought for a little while longer.

  • on December 30, 2010, 2:33 GMT

    Guys I am agreeing to use UDRS as it brings up the level of accuracy to much extent in decisions. However this match India won because they outplayed SA. Even though we lost the toss and had to bat in first innings in worst conditions but still we played good. Undoubtedly Indian batting level is far better then SA and we are lacking only in balling department. Which to much extent was filled in this match by Zaheer. And if all these SA and Aus players they can't tolerate loosing matches by other specially Indians.

  • Nerk on December 30, 2010, 2:27 GMT

    It is a simple matter really. I don't like the UDRS, I think it slows down the game. You should accept the umpires decision, no matter what. I also think cricket evens itself out in the end, you get a good decision one innings, you get a bad one the next. But it has been implemented, and it should be implemented universally. This should be a matter not up to the boards, it should be up to the ICC and it should be the ICC's duty to make sure every country has the same equipment. The same hawkeye, the same hot spot, the same slow motion.

  • MohsinMalik on December 30, 2010, 2:26 GMT

    As per the ICC's regulations, the host country must decide on the use of the UDRS in consultation with the visiting nation. This rule needs to be rephrased. Here is a suggestion: "The host country must decide on the use of the UDRS and inform the visiting nation of their intent prior to the commencement of the tour". Hit the nail in the coffin from the very outset, ICC and leave no room for any ambiguity. Viewers for their part have no bickering about it and are becoming part of this review system with a degree of keenness. No one is saying that it is boring and/or time wasting. Rather, it's becoming crucial to a fair judgment being dispensed in the end. As each team is allowed two challenges, the perception is gaining momentum that teams are learning to use the available opportunities with due discretion and in times of dire need. This certainly would have been the case with SA and for that matter with India who have no reason to be intransigence. Mohsin Malik (San Francisco)

  • Ozcricketwriter on December 30, 2010, 2:20 GMT

    Put it to a vote. If the majority of nations wants UDRS, it goes in for EVERYONE. One team cannot hold everyone else to ransom. BCCI does not rule cricket.

  • on December 30, 2010, 1:53 GMT

    @All

    How can be UDRS useful? Is it taking into account of the turn, bounce, swing a pitch offers? Can it take into account the ability of a bowler? The trajectory is PREDICTED not tracked. Then how can it be fool proof.It can only spur controversy. It should not be used until it is proved as fool proof. And hawkeye is as stupid as anything. Hotspot is ok. ICC should tell batsman to walk straight away if he knows he has edged. LBWs are difficult but it can still use a strip of radar along the stumps line to know whether the ball pitched on line, then the decision should be by on field umpires. Else all these are only waste of time and money.

  • Kirk-at-Lords on December 30, 2010, 1:50 GMT

    Procedurally, the matter is simple: Use whatever technology is available at a venue for both sides. No reason to wait for the perfect technology, which may require a global sponsor or some such. When and if that comes along, fine! Meanwhile, work toward a system with less on-field involvement. Perhaps each side can have a "spotter" equipped with TV monitors who can inform the coach and/or off-field captain, who can then turn on a red light to signal a challenge. Better yet, leave it up to the TV umpire and on-field umpires to work things out; they ought to be trustworthy since the majority will not be of the home side's nationality. As for the politics... if the ICC are too weak to act, or if India are too powerful, then cricket needs a major restructuring! Besides, it is embarrassing to India and to the sport for the world #1 to act like petulant children refusing to eat their vegetables since the one and only time they tried UDRS in Sri Lanka when it was inaugurated in 2008.

  • balajik1968 on December 30, 2010, 1:38 GMT

    Personally I feel that LBW decisions will always be contentious. So UDRS is not helpful there. I feel that this is the real sticking point for India in UDRS. Maybe the ICC could remove the LBW out of the equation, paving the way for universal acceptability. As for LBW, let us just howl about the decisions. What is cricket without a little controversy. You don't see too many mavericks in cricket today. They have been legislated out of the game. Maybe we need to take a step back and encourage the characters. At the end of the day, it is just a game.

  • on December 30, 2010, 1:36 GMT

    Smith is right, UDRS has to be universally applied, it is not perfect but better than not having it. India was lucky 3 times and that takes some of the sheen off the otherwise excellent fightback. And, really, there is no need for Sreesanth to indulge in histrionics instead keep producing that "brute of a ball".

  • Jaggadaaku on December 30, 2010, 1:35 GMT

    India used UDRS once against SL where the TV umpire(SL Umpire) gave all Indian batsmen out besides, it was clearly looking not out on the screen. And all SL batsmen declared not-out where some of them looking out on the screen. So, since then, India learned a lesson that even if they accept UDRS, and use that, the third umpire does what he wants. And there is no punishment for wrong umpiring in cricket. There should be something like any umpire should apologize to the batsmen in the public at the end of the day if he involve in wrong decision. This kind of matter will decrease the rate of wrong umpiring, I think. Because people don't like to apologize all the time, and gradually, they would become more and more careful.

  • Vroomfondel on December 30, 2010, 1:29 GMT

    I am in agreement with the comments by Joe Yates and Indianpunter: UDRS has been used very effectively in the Ashes series. Strauss has been particularly good at using it - whereas poor old Ponting was rubbish (cost him 40% of his match fee - why challenge the technology?) And don't forget it was Aleem Dar who challenged his own decision after giving Prior out and what transpired to be a no-ball! What is the BCCI trying to hide by not allowing UDRS to be used? @Phani Rajeev Peddi: what a daft comment! KP didn't touch the ball. Only Haddin appealed. Ponting went with his 'keeper. UDRS proved the umpire was right. Contrary to your assertion, UDRS works. Why do you Indians fear it so?

  • Mannix16 on December 30, 2010, 1:20 GMT

    hmm... tendulkar given howlers? I only remember him getting horrible decisions in the ODI version of the game, and that also in the mid 90's. After 2000, he didn't have that many bad decisions against him in ODI's. Can't remember the last time he got out to a bad decision in test too... but i do know he has been given some lives in Test cricket. He's an honest guy and is likely to walk if he an edge or something, only way UDRS can help him is if he didn't edge the ball and I think if he does not walk, umpires know that he did not nick the ball and won't give him out..unless good appeal... therefore UDRS can't really give benefit to him.... wonder what India is gonna do when World Cup comes along... they don't really have good experience with UDRS and it should be interesting how Dhoni approaches it

  • sorenreinard on December 30, 2010, 1:16 GMT

    @Ok then....Nothing in the universe is known to 100% precision. Infact, the laws of gravity that you take for granted arent known with 100% precision - infact those laws that you think are the reason for your feet on the ground are a gross approximation. Yet, do you question why those laws should be used? They work perfectly for the purpose. As for the system not taking varying pitch conditions, moisture in the air, etc, you clearly dont know how the system predicts the path. It's called initial conditions. Once the ball has left the surface, even if it travels only a few inches before hitting the pad, we know the velocity and initial trajectory of the ball. The laws of physics can then predict the rest of the trajectory. Yes, this is not 100% accurate because not everything (moisture) is known about the universe around the ball - by your argument we should start taking into account the flapping of butterfly wings in japan, because they have some effect. But for practical purposes...

  • kickapakibutt on December 30, 2010, 1:16 GMT

    Smith is a sore loser and he is bitching & moaning because SAfrica lost. Yeah, decisions did go against SA. However, this victory is comprehensive. Be a man & suck it up Smithe.

  • on December 30, 2010, 0:55 GMT

    To say that India won because of 3 umpiring decisions is just silly. What about the other 17 wickets India took? What if de Villiers and Boucher got out on the next ball they faced? Interesting that most of the comments have come from India's wonderful neighbours to the immediate West. Perhaps they should concentrate on getting drubbed by NZ and make sure there players hands aren't in the pockets of bookmakers.

  • Philip_Gnana on December 30, 2010, 0:53 GMT

    Graeme Smith is in cloud cuckoo land. India always had the benefit of home advantage to back them. The have had the most benefit of the home umpiring decisions. So whey should they agree? Agreed that it is not Cricket and not a level playing field. If India accepts they will be losing home series. The UDRS system has improved so much that it gives a much fairer decision especially for bat pad, pad bat, catches, no balls etc. We has seen how the West Indians benefitted and quite rightly so. Why should the batsmen be given out when there is the system in place to give a fairer decision? That is cricket isn't it. ICC needs to enforce it. But, the ICC is run byt the BCCI anyway. THAT IS NOT CRICKET. A fairer decision is what counts. Umpires are human and we need to rectifiy their errors. Philip Gnana, Surrey

  • The_Professor on December 30, 2010, 0:45 GMT

    People criticising Team India for not opting for UDRS, pls stop. At the moment UDRS is optional and Team India are quite within their rights to opt against it. It is for the ICC to make the UDRS compulsory - and pls don't say that BCCI controls ICC because that is rubbish. This sort of talk only started when India became #1. All those years when India struggled at test cricket there was no such talk. I am generally not a person with conspiracy theories BUT can the 'hawk-eye' and 'snicko' not be doctored/ altered??? - sometimes they come up with results that are hard to fathom...you can almost feel that they were results from another delivery altogether!!

  • on December 30, 2010, 0:36 GMT

    Someone Commented about Sachin "Tendulkar does not like UDRS as he benefits in marginal decisions" its really rubbish.If you follow cricket properly Sachin is one of the cricketer who got most of the bad Decisions from umpires.If someone talking about him negatively best thing i could say You are not a cricket follower.

    UDRS has good and BAD.

    Dis Advantages If someone use hawkeye to judge the bounce and turn of the 4th and 5th day pitch, Thats the worst thing can happen.

    Hawkeye bounce prediction hopeles

    Hawkeye cannot judge turn of Spinner.

    Camera angles should be proper to judge.

    faint edges or thin edges is hard to find without hot spot.

    Advantages Batpad Decision will improve LBW decison will improve if only used for finding inside edges and to check ball pitched in line (Dont think of using Hawkeye to judge bounce) Proper Edges sometimes umpires fail to here or see.(Dont use it for thin edges without hot spot).

  • on December 30, 2010, 0:29 GMT

    @NRI11...Great comment. A batsman should have no recourse if he is given out not offering a shot. I have no sympathy for a batsman who doesn't use his bat. And if the bowling team appeals a not-out decision with no shot offered, even if hawkeye reveals the ball only clipping the stumps, it should be overturned. It should be the one instance where benefit of doubt goes to the bowler.

  • on December 30, 2010, 0:23 GMT

    India would have lost the match if udrs was used . In fact, we would have and should hav even Lost matches against sl at home if udrs was used. Bcci is extremely arrogant and the umpires are now afraid that if they got one decision wrong against us, then they would probably end up in the same boat as bucknor or miss out on an ipl contract. Steve davies is a very good umpire, but look at the decisions that he got wrong .... Gambhit in 1st test was out earlier, zaheer should hvae been out on the score on 181 and resulted in the target cut down by 37 odd runs and well Boucher was out if there was a 5th stump in place. So consider this, sa lost by 87 runs ....they should have Lost by 50 if zaheer. Was given out and if de villiers and Boucher weren't given out they would have easily added 50 more and won. Dhoni put pressure on Steve davies after India nz series when he gave two howlers against India by saying "if u look at laxmans decision the. I don't know what to say..."

  • SilentVoyager on December 30, 2010, 0:09 GMT

    @Indianpunter: Wow, you are amazing. How can you make such a statement that umpires feel reluctant to send Sachin off the ground when he is out? I can't believe this. Don't you know about how many times the famous Steve Buckner adjudged Sachin out when he is actually not? Sachin has been at the receiving end of so many bad decisions but he never for once spoke about them. That is why people don't remember it. But my concern is when the article is about UDRS and everybody has a personal opinion about it, why are you hitting at Sachin dude? Even MS Dhoni don't support UDRS. Does it mean they want to benefit from marginal decisions? Please don't talk or bring your personal feelings on some one (Sachin) here and then don't urge his fans to not take you on.

  • IAS2009 on December 30, 2010, 0:08 GMT

    most big name player won;t support because they always get benefit of doubt, it is not associate tendulkar only, on low scoring game those three decision were really the game changer though.

  • on December 30, 2010, 0:08 GMT

    In the Ashes, the hawkeye camera goes at 220fps. With that speed, you don't need to "calibrate" it to every pitch. It analyses where the ball pitched and then where the ball struck the pad. From those two points, the bounce, speed and trajectory are obvious, with only gravity (which is constant) to be factored in. If there is one thing everyone can say about the Ashes, it is that there haven't been any howlers - bad decisions for or against the batsmen have been overturned. What is more, both teams are becoming more shrewd about which decisions to challenge. So get over it BCCI, please give Indian fans one less thing to whinge about. Oh, and Indianpunter - awesome comment.

  • on December 30, 2010, 0:06 GMT

    ICC should force all boards to accept it once hotspot cameras become available. Id o think that Boucher's decision at a crucial time , though his poor run of form is a different issue. AB's wicket looked plumb on first look though. As for the trajectory, it is difficult for any technology to predict the bounce on a wicket with uneven bounce. The umpire simply stuck to the basis and gave him out on the factors that 1)He was stuck in line , and it was a straight delivery with no spin on it. 2) He was rapped below the knee roll, half-way down infact.

  • on December 30, 2010, 0:01 GMT

    ha ha as your name as punter i can understand where it is coming from. But dear if UDRS is implemented sachin is the one who is going to be most benefited. I hope you know that Tendulkar is victim of most unfavorable decisions..

  • Thisismyopinion on December 29, 2010, 23:51 GMT

    To say that UDRS is 100% accurate is not really 100% accurate. When a ball hits the pad 1-2 inches from the ground and a prediction is made that the ball will go over the stumps or at the stumps is really dangerous. A pitch wears over time and the bounce changes over the course of a test match. So I can't believe that we can make predictions to the variable nature of a pitch and the bounce with a computer tool that assumes perfection in bounce. Just because hawk eye says the ball would go over the stumps does not mean it will. How can someone provide validation and proof that it is an accurate tool to begin with. How about doing a test to see how accurate hawk eye is? Provide a sample of deliveries (say a 100 deliveries from spin to fast bowling and on different pitches and with different types of cricket balls) - provide data only until the ball hits the ground and see how accurately hawk eye can match the actual trajectory, bounce and direction? publish the data on youtube.

  • on December 29, 2010, 23:31 GMT

    @sorenreinard, Then wat is wrong with every appeal! refer it to the computer..why only 4 per side for UDRS?

  • cric4world on December 29, 2010, 23:20 GMT

    @ sorenreinard. dude i totally agree with u. most of the ppl here dont have any idea how UDRS works or how they prepare the system to work for a particular match on a particular ground.most ppl think its one universal software thats applied to every match on every ground without any changes.well it doesnt work this way.though its not 100% accurate but its still way better then umpiring howlers we see andl atleast it gives the audience n players a great deal of satisfaction n minimises the debates and denials from players n fans.right now BCCI is against UDRS bcoz they r basically a batting side and with their key players close to making n breaking world records its in their favour to let them take advantage of those howlers, or atleast put sum healthy score on board bcoz their bowlers most of the time r not capable enough of defence.so most of the times these mistakes go in their favour in one way or the other.n ponting's objection this time around was totally psychological

  • on December 29, 2010, 23:18 GMT

    i totally agree with you indianpunter, well said

  • on December 29, 2010, 23:15 GMT

    @sorenreinard, please enlighten me..does the computer take in to account the moisture in the air and over-casting/cloudy weather? I have yet to see any conclusive proof that UDRS is 100% accurate..plus u should know that if the batsman does not offer a shot (aka padding) the benefit of doubt belongs to the bowler!! If UDRS is proven to be 100% accurate then i agree. it should be a stander!

  • ManjuEleven on December 29, 2010, 23:13 GMT

    Hi All, Remember one thing - the manufacturer and distributor of this technology itself accepted that the product is not 100% reliable. So, there is noway anybody else can say it is good. Smith is just asking it to be used everytime. Go and ask Ricky Ponting, now he will say URDS is useless.

  • pintu01 on December 29, 2010, 23:03 GMT

    UDRS system is a nice way of removing human mistakes and since the technology is available we should use. Recently it was nicely used in tests between Australia and England. Why India objects to use it?....'cause they will benefit from the mistakes and will ensure their #1 position (in test rankings). If you think you are a qualified team, be brave and accept the review system. India was the the beneficiary of all the wrong decisions (at least 3 wrong decisions against South Africa were made), aha that is the reason you don't want to use/fearful of the UDRS system. I think all the cricket teams should avaoid playing India if they do not agree in future...

  • indianpunter on December 29, 2010, 22:55 GMT

    I am Indian, but i do favour using UDRS. It is not a perfect system, but does help to eliminate absolute howlers like the one Boucher got. But, having only Hawkeye is not good enough. Hotspot should also be universally available. Personally, i feel that Tendulkar does not like UDRS as he benefits in marginal decisions. Umpires find it hard to give him out ( in recent times) unless it looks really plumb ( now with all the scrutiny). The most recent case in point being against Harris in the 2nd inns at Centurion where he was clearly out. Tendulkar fans, please see reason and dont just jump at my throat.

  • sorenreinard on December 29, 2010, 22:38 GMT

    The ignorance of people to physics is astounding....when an umpire decided whether the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps, he is precisely doing the same thing, with a far lower accuracy than the computer - He's simply using his vision and predicting where the ball would go with his human mind, which is full of distractions and other thoughts. The predictions of the UDRS are based on physical calculations, not human prediction. While theoretical calculations are never 100% accurate, the physics of fluid dynamics and ball kinetics are known well enough to be considered 100% for all practical purposes. Thus, such a system would be much better than completely relying on the umpires, who no matter what one says, are full of bias and distractions (it's a natural part of human nature). I even support a full use of the thermal system as in the current ashes. There's nothing wrong with the referral system either - 2 wrong challenges and you cant make anymore.

  • Sal_CricFan on December 29, 2010, 22:31 GMT

    If UDRS is not working for all the members of ICC it should be disbanded alltogather. Afterall BCCI does not oppose for the sake of it. They have valid concerns with the spin bowling trajectory prediction. Another concern they have is the calibration of the technology is not done for every pitch. This will not work as technology calibrated by Durban standards may produce bouncers for Harbhajan at Mumbai and Steyn would produce 45 degree spin bowling on Kingsmeade if the technology is calibrated at the Chennai pitch. If the the producer of the technology does not reveal how and where the system was calibrated, UDRS may produce controversies more than sound decisions. Even Ricky Ponting kept arguing with every joe smoe he saw about how Pieterson should have been given out. He is a big supporter of UDRS and yet he doesn't trust it completely.

  • oman20101982 on December 29, 2010, 22:07 GMT

    Its not about moaning , i simply dont understand any argument which is made in support of Not using UDRS . UDRS is an excellent Thing to assist umpires more times and very good Though It may be not good at times( although i dont know why it isnt useful at some times ) but mostly of the times its awsome facility

  • cooldude12 on December 29, 2010, 22:07 GMT

    The main problem with UDRS is that it relies on a player/captain questioning an umpiring decision. So, what happens is that the onus of making the correct decision is shifted from the umpire to a player (who may not always be in the best position to question an umpiring decision, for example LBW). The player's role in the game is to play -- not worry about whether umpiring decisions are being made correctly. I don't understand the logic behind "challenging" an umpiring decision. If the goal of UDRS is to get rid of bad decisions, the clean way to do that is to have all contentious decisions (definitely all LBW's) go through UDRS (i.e. get rid of the "challenging" process). Period. UDRS as is implemented today has to eradicate this basic flaw first.

  • Emijhb on December 29, 2010, 22:00 GMT

    Clearly there are many reasons why SA lost this test, it didnt all come down to two bad decisions, still, coming into day four the game was on a knife edge with either side able to win, to suggest that loosing two of your top six to bad decisions within a few overs did not have a profound effect on the outcome and SA are just bad losers is just plain stupid. It is sad to see such an excellent match ultimately tipped not through a brilliant performance by a player but by umpiring mistakes and the refusal of the BCCI to use technology that has been proven over and over.

    But if you forget for a moment this match and these specific decisions there is also a question of principle, cricket is an international game, teams across the world are competing for world ranking as are players, how can you have two series on at the same time with different playing conditions, surely either all must use the UDRS or none should?

  • on December 29, 2010, 21:55 GMT

    BCCI should embrace UDRS.There can't be double thoughts about that.ICC has to standardize it as well.The current Ind-SA series does not have Hotspot but the Pak-Nzl and Ashes series do have them for UDRS.The low availability of HotSpot cameras is a issue.But the thing is Smith has complained about it when decisions have went against his team but he had nothing to offer when De Villiers and Kallis got lives in the recent UAE series.He will make noises because he lost the match and he wanted the system to be used in the home series.The decisions can't take the sheen from India's victory.But I believe sooner than later umpiring errors will come to bite their ass at a crucial juncture and they can't even crib for that.May the best team win in Cape Town.

  • screamingeagle on December 29, 2010, 21:41 GMT

    Moan moan moan.

    That is all its is.

    Have a good one at Cape Town, Smith. I am sure you would moan some more then.

    I wonder where all those people talking about India getting whitewashed in SAF went..probably to the discussion about how SAF was robbed coz UDRS was not in use, I guess. :P

  • CricketkaFunda on December 29, 2010, 21:39 GMT

    continue... Toss should not be decided by coin that in itself adds to unequality of game. Game should be played by 5 overs. After 5 overs, next team should play, it would be like 5 over each till one team lost all wkts, then other team continue to play. When it's inning is over, second inning should start in a similar fashion. Or THE SIMPLE SOLUTION IS ACCEPT THE WAY GAME IS, NO UDRS, BUT BETTER AND UN-BIASED UMPIRING. BETTER UNPIRING STANDARD BY GIVING BETTER TRAINING AND FACILITATING UMPIRES ON GOOD MATCHES. FOR GOD'S SAKE, LEAVE THE GAME AS IT IS.

  • saravananannai on December 29, 2010, 21:33 GMT

    IF u r the NO. 1 , then why do u fear to use UDRS.Use it my dear guys then we shut their talks know if u r playing well why u fear for anything if u fear to face even u fear for umpires.INDIANS r growing money- minded Plz i beg sachin,Kristen & Dhoni to show the correct way for the team as well as for BCCI.We r true n faith as an INDIAN. GO INDIA GO HEAD !

    PROUD TO BE INDIAN!

  • CricketkaFunda on December 29, 2010, 21:30 GMT

    Some of comments were really interesting. Cricket in itself is not a game of equality. You can never have same conditions for both the team. It can be weather or pitch or dew or toss. All these factors, affect the result outcome. As far as umpiring decisions go, I am in favor UDRS, only if there is no limit of appeal. People can argue about delay in match, then if you want accuracy, you have to sacrifice on sthng. Now a days, UDRS, taken as a strategy, in that case sometimes even out are not reviewed or can not be reviewed as team did not have appeal left. All in all, even after review system, with 3 appeal, you are left with wrong decisions. Noballs should also be given in a way that if there is overstepping, it sounds a beep. As there is no equality in no ball and sometimes depend on umpire's decision and diff umpires have diff. opinion, as they say line belongs to umpire. It happened today, when Ishant was given no-ball which by replays did not seem to be.

  • cricket4evar on December 29, 2010, 21:25 GMT

    the two matters of the three decisions are a separate matter to SA losing thematch. But i do agree the BCCI shouldnt be allow tomuscle thier views on the international cricket boards. THe ICC need to buck up and apply consistency to alll boards. About if the the match would have turned out different if those wickts had been given,its moot and not relevant. Cricket will even itself out. SAwill probably get some favourable desisions in cape town

  • geoffw on December 29, 2010, 21:24 GMT

    Why don't the BCCI want to use the UDRS ? Is there a problem ? Let them state what the issues are - rather than "we don't want to use it".

    Did anyone see Aleem Dar refer a Johnson no-ball on Day 3 in Melb to the UDRS ? I was surprised that the umpy referred a no-ball he was not sure about - and sure enough - it was worth referring for the Poms - and another nail in the coffin for the Aussies. I think that the technology eliminates the idiotic decision, and any bias. Bring it on.

  • on December 29, 2010, 21:24 GMT

    This is utter nonsense that the BCCI can dicate terms and bully the ICC and other test nations into doing as it pleases. Time for the ICC to show some guts and who is in charge of the game, and take back control!

  • bvnathan on December 29, 2010, 21:22 GMT

    SA, pleaes stop MOANING that you lost the test, just because UDRS was not used. Accept that you were comprehensively outplayed by a disciplined attack led by Zahir. Yes, Wimbledon is using HAWKEYE for close line calls. The readers need to understand in TENNIS, the aim is to determine the point of impact (on or out) and nobody is talking about the deviation after the impact. In CRICKET the subjectivity is what would happen with the deviation after impact? Is current UDRS good enough and tested thoroughly for this deviation analysis? What are the parameters that are used for such analysis? If the methodology and science used by UDRS is proved consistent at a 3 or 4-Sigma level accuracy, then there is a strong case of using the same consistently across all matches and by all countries. THAT IS A WIN-WIN SITUATION - FOR ALL, GAME FOR IT

  • cooljack_143 on December 29, 2010, 21:22 GMT

    Without Steyn this SA bowling attack seems to be the same as was Indian attack wothout Zak.So friends please make it a point before you comment on Indian bowling attack.Without steyn SA CANNOT take 20 wickets thats for sure.Remember champions leauge, banglore RC lost due to steyns injury.so much a role Steyn has to play here.The best bolwer for years to come.My hats off to the young HERO..STEYN IS THE BEST..THE BEST..Cheers

  • abhinandan.chiney on December 29, 2010, 21:16 GMT

    @hockey: There is a reason as to why Hawk-eye is always correct in tennis but not so in cricket... In cricket, from the point of impact of the ball with the bat/pad, hawk-eye solely depends on mathematics and the assumptions of Computational Fluid Dynamics to PREDICT the trajectory of the ball (hence it may not be 100% accurate... the same reasons as to why theoretical calculations often differ from practical observations)... in tennis however there is no calculation or assumption, the software merely tracks out the path actually travelled by the ball by reconstructing live images (and hence chances of errors are close to 0)..! Now do u understand as to y people are not sure of hawk-eye in cricket? In cricket, if there is no impact and hawkeye is 100% correct... bt hawk is not full proof for LBWs....!

  • on December 29, 2010, 21:07 GMT

    The problem with UDRS is batsman on field has to make the call and not the coach, some batsmen are not good umpires specially when looking at lbw. It takes about 5 minutes for new batsmen to arrive at crease why can't all wicket decisions be reviewed by third umpire, if it is wrong batsmen is recalled. With 97+ % accuracy it should not be that many. This is biassed towards batsmen but fielding side can always use UDRS as it is.

  • the_blue_android on December 29, 2010, 21:00 GMT

    Overcast conditions - Check, Win Toss - Check, pitch turning into a belter on days 2/3/4 - Check....if one of them doesn;t work out SA loses home games...proof? SA losing to Aus at home, SA drawing against a mediocre Pom team...SA will loseto India 1-2...

  • on December 29, 2010, 20:52 GMT

    It is quite amazing that a hallowed institution such as Winmbledon have embraced the technology of hawkeye yet some cricket people think that it is inaccurate, double standards??

  • msatya on December 29, 2010, 20:52 GMT

    The way we debating for UDRS should have implemented to give the right justice to the umpire decision same way i would like to debate here how about the toss. Certain weather condition give undue advantage to toss win team which affect the result of the match, in this case Ceturion test where SA was in advantage position and won the match. Like UDRS why not we have 1 over hit policy where each team will face 1 over and highest scorer team will choose bat or bowl. In this case talent come into play not the luck for the result of the game.

  • CaughtAndBowled on December 29, 2010, 20:47 GMT

    If Indian board is against UDRS, why bother with third umpire for run out, stumping etc? Do away will all of them and take us back to 80's.

  • hatrick26 on December 29, 2010, 20:38 GMT

    I agree that UDRS should be tried and could be made uniform but there is also an element of doubt with BCCI wrt to a spinner's LBW decisions. UDRS company does not want to reveal the technology/test results behind their method to anybody. I think BCCI were okay with using it if the company reveal the details of those tests/technology. Sometimes some spinner like Murali turn the ball so much and no one has any idea how much it will turn and BCCI is interested in that particularly in India where the ball can turn a lot. All commentators say technology is there, so why not use it but who reviews the reviewer system thoroughly? Is a spinner's LBW decisions fool proof in UDRS? If not, then it is really moot whether an umpire makes an error or UDRS. I think BCCI is okay with catches,run-outs,snicko & hotspot but with LBW from a spinner (UDRS company's test results for them are still murky) and the methodology behind it is where BCCI is having problems with.

  • TheGuruji on December 29, 2010, 20:36 GMT

    I am surprised to see so many fans over here whining when India complained about the huge number of atrocious decisions in the Sydney '08 test, now feel very comfortable about the decisions supposedly "against" SA. Wise up guys. Those decisions had no impact whatsoever on the result. Anyway no one here talks about the decisions that went in favor of the SA team! No surprise there. If it involves India, then they must be the ones culpable.

  • TheGuruji on December 29, 2010, 20:31 GMT

    Why are we not talking about the couple of decisions which went South Africa's way? It's petty to only talk about decisions that did not favor the SA team. Of the 2 so-called "bad" decisions, AB's could definitely be given out. He was not offering a shot; doesn't matter if Hawk Eye thinks it would have gone over. That predictive technology is not proven and the umpire would be the best judge. Even if UDRS was in place, this one would not have been overturned.

  • NRI- on December 29, 2010, 20:20 GMT

    Smith is lucky he won the toss two in a row. The toss should be out of the system and the visiting team should decide.

  • NRI- on December 29, 2010, 20:15 GMT

    Smith is basically saying he lost because of poor umpiring. AB was out because he offered no shot, in which case the benefit of the doubt goes to the BOWLER. Saying that Hawkeye showed the ball missing the stump is meaningless because Hawkeye used that way would mean no difference between shot offered and not offered. The third umpire should not be able to be used in cases of no shot offered. As to Boucher, yes he was not out but Prince was out so that evens it out. UDRS should be used at in all matches and each team should be allowed 4 unsuccessful turns. Only Sachin does not want it, Dhoni does and so does Sehwag, yet BCCI is swayed by sachin alone and they pressurised CSA. Ponting was out for 9 at the MCG offering no shot to Bresnan and even when Hawkeye showed the ball clipping the stump, Warne and Greig called it not out (was not referred). When no shot is offered, the umprie needs to have zero doubt that the the ball would have missed the stumps by a long distance.

  • on December 29, 2010, 20:05 GMT

    I know that's why India's on this 2nd Test. If they have a problom with the UDRS then they should not use it, but the South Africans can. Gosh South Africa have to bounce back at Cape Town

  • sunnymachoo on December 29, 2010, 19:51 GMT

    Totally agree with Smith. Its unfair if Aus vs Eng match has UDRS and Ind vs SA doesn't have it. Either use it for all matches or don't use it at all.

  • Avid.Cricket.Watcher on December 29, 2010, 19:46 GMT

    Yup...ICC needs to keep engaging all the countries and try to ensure, over the next 6-12 months, that UDRS - with HotSpot - is uniformly utilized across all Test matches. As far as this match goes...SA were unfortunate to have a few close calls go against them...but you just have to accept the luck of the draw. A bit like winning the toss and getting to send the opposition in on a green pitch under overcast skies (as on Day 1). Still, would be good for the game if the ICC invited a central global sponsor to bear the UDRS costs in all series.

  • on December 29, 2010, 19:44 GMT

    I believe India is afraid of UDRS because they have lost the series to Sri Lanka which helped rectifying umpiring errors in that series. If this system was not used then the result might have different impact. India always rely on poor umpiring standards and wrong decision going in their favor. If the decision have impact on south africa, result SA win then Indians have cried like small kidz...............................

  • on December 29, 2010, 19:42 GMT

    indian cricket is just crap..they fear of losing thats why they always oppose udrs...

  • kool_Indian on December 29, 2010, 19:38 GMT

    whatever - blah blah blah...

  • on December 29, 2010, 19:35 GMT

    "Prior to this series, South Africa had used the UDRS in three of their last four Test series, with the exception being their tour of India." - UDRS wasn't used in South Africa's most recent series against Pakistan as well. The article has a one dimensional view and is pretty much Pro- South African!

  • Quazar on December 29, 2010, 19:32 GMT

    I for one agree with Smith that ICC needs to take responsibility to ensure uniform application of UDRS...all the matches I've seen over the last year, the UDRS has certainly helped achieve better decision making. However, I'd like to correct Firdose...SA and Pak didn't have the UDRS in the recent Tests in the ME...and on that occasion it was AB Devilliers and SA who benefited a few times...AB would have been ruled out twice (the 1st time when he was ~70) in the course of his record-breaking 278*. And let's remember that lack of UDRS can affect both teams ... so it isn't exactly an advantage for just 1 team.

  • on December 29, 2010, 19:26 GMT

    URDS is not a bad !dea... it should be uniformly used by all nations.

  • on December 29, 2010, 19:25 GMT

    Frankly speaking smith is right.....to know it's flaws we muse use it often make it mandatory for all games so we'd get fair results few hard decisions went against sa but totally we did well now lets see bcci needs to agree with icc to take udrs

  • on December 29, 2010, 19:22 GMT

    this means if u win a match u dont talk about udrs and if u lose one u start talking wow

  • ravi_musti on December 29, 2010, 19:21 GMT

    Smith isn't saying it outright because he doesn't want to come across as a sore loser but I'm sure he's thinking it and I agree with him that had UDRS been in play the match could've gone another way, frankly would've lost. The UDRS should be implemented, I don't see what the problem is and Dhoni's and Sachin's reasons seem very very lame. "Not good enough', 'Not completely accurate'? Aren't they better and more accurate then a blatantly wrong decision? I'm glad India won this test but the UDRS should definitely be implemented starting with the World Cup.

  • Proteassa on December 29, 2010, 19:19 GMT

    With regards to the Harbhajan Singh lbw appeal the ball, as indicated by Hawkeye, was going way over the stumps. With all due respect, the articles I've read by this cricket journalist indicate a lack of knowledge of the game, padded with jibes, and does not merit being on the same page as the professional articles written by the true professional journalists on Cricinfo.

  • vakkaraju on December 29, 2010, 19:18 GMT

    URDS is always praised by the captains as long as the decisions go their way. When the system demonstrates is obvious weaknesses then they complain. A team which is very aggressive in asking for reviews also loses out. The available technology is also not uniform. The first time it was used in an India SL series even Hawkeye was not used. The result was the third umpire was found wanting in more than one instance. A system where every decision is quickly reviewed "upstairs" may be more useful. It is the officials responsibility which includes the third umpire and the Match referee to get most decisions right and should not depend on the players, asking or questioning calls.

  • on December 29, 2010, 19:16 GMT

    Why India don't prefer this UDRS system? It could might benefit them too....

  • khurramsch on December 29, 2010, 19:11 GMT

    oh dear oh dear. look who is speaking for UDRS? y didnt he said ths afetr 2nd test in UAE aginst pakistan when on 1st day 4 decisions went in favour of SA & 1 against? about the match its good that zaheer got suport from other end. coz after 1st match i was thinking what zaheer would do alone but he got good suport & definately won this match. he should have been man of the match.

  • Scube on December 29, 2010, 19:05 GMT

    If there is one thing I just can't ever understand, it's the reason behind BCCI's stand against UDRS supposedly based on the opinion of senior players! Argument that it's not yet perfect is the most stupid point one can put forth! I wish they get sensible sooner than later! And ICC's inability to have the last word on such a significant issue for so long is a shame too!

  • hikerhitch on December 29, 2010, 19:01 GMT

    Graeme Smith is absolutely correct in pointing out the usefulness of UDRS. While the more widely available technology (Hawk Eye) may not be completely foolproof and the Hot Spot technology might be a useful and more concrete addition to the repertoire of tools with the adjudicating third umpire, there is no denying the fact that teams would get a higher percentage of correct decisions with UDRS than without! I don't understand the reason behind BCCI and Dhoni's steadfast refusal of the system! In fact, I feel the third umpire should be within his rights to reverse an on-field decision, especially those dealing with batsmen's dismissals, given that he has access to technology that the the on-field umpires don't! Wouldn't it be tragic to have, let's say, a World Cup final be decided on a wrong decision meted out to a certain Sachin Tendulkar - what would BCCI say then??

  • chokkashokka on December 29, 2010, 19:00 GMT

    Here we go again....why are the bushmen such sore losers? They should accept that they got their tuckus handed to them by the tourists - people should know when they are conquered. Accepting reality is the first step towards progress - the reality is that bushmen are second-best and India is the No. 1 team in the world. Another reality is that Graeme Smith is over-weight and his team are a bunch of namby-pamby cry-babies.

  • Gaganaut on December 29, 2010, 19:00 GMT

    Why do BCCI bully all the boards and why do others give in? Being an Indian myself, I feel that SA were cheated in this match. I could not even watch the match post-lunch on 4th day because of that. There is no harm in having UDRS, I feel. If wastage of time is an issue then, India could save some time by just asking Zaheer to walk fast between deliveries and not sledging after every delivery. If staying old school is what BCCI thinking about, then I just feel the officials are just giving an excuse to not shelling out some money to install the equipment. If they say so because SRT and MSD says so, then that is plain rubbish. One could just look at the Ashes 4th test and how UDRS helped there. This is not about India winning or not. I am happy that the series is till on. But al least the way they won could have been right.

  • on December 29, 2010, 18:55 GMT

    Oh Please stop crying foul Mr. Smith....If u guys are so adamant about UDRS why didnt u persuade BCCI consistently to accept it???Yes,BCCI refused once but CSA must have pushed them more. Anyway I think HAWKEYE is just too flawed to be called precise decision maker....How many times plumb LBWs are shown as not out in Hawk eye?Even with hotspot tech UDRS system is flawed and will remain so until something accurate system is invented.In the mean time,why not play the game as players and stop trying to be umpire,Mr. Smith??Suck it up and move on please.Let the 2 gentlemen with hats take care of it!

  • Tjoeps on December 29, 2010, 18:47 GMT

    The UDRS system is a must, in all countries, at all games, what prevents the match fixing Mafia to include umpires? The system will help the umpires who strives for perfection and show up those that don't cut the mustard!

  • on December 29, 2010, 18:42 GMT

    Still cant believe how much muscle the BCCI have. Its SA's home series and they have the right to use UDRS but the BCCI 'refuse' ....? You have got to be kidding me - what did they do threaten to walk out like they did against Aus 2 yrs ago because they want things there way? This is a 'giant' that simply MUST be toppled.

  • on December 29, 2010, 18:41 GMT

    Who are we kidding.. What the BCCI wants the BCCI gets. Awful decisions by Davis.

  • sonjjay on December 29, 2010, 18:23 GMT

    I agree the UDRS should be used.The BCCI's refusal to use the udrs is incorrect.But why wasnt the UDRS used in the Pak vs SA series? There were some bad decisions there too and no one complained then.What does this tell you? Anyways all the critics are going to have a field day now.I think there might be some incorporeal theories from people now, most of them wont be from SA fans though.

  • on December 29, 2010, 18:22 GMT

    somehow i knew that it was coming from Smith .. what a sore looser :) just love his frustration of being given the taste of his medicine by Indian and exposed as ineffective captain and batsman

  • SnowSnake on December 29, 2010, 18:19 GMT

    Why doesn't ICC hire an outside consulting company to investigate this issue and settle this once and for all. Given the availability of the technology, the second guessing will continue for ever. I don't think that the technology solves any more problems than it creates, but having some teams play with technology and some without brings inconsistencies in results.

  • Bhatin on December 29, 2010, 18:18 GMT

    A bad decision here or there is part of the game. A series of bad decisions is not acceptable though like Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson did in that infamous Sydney test back in 2008. Over the years, players have benefited from umpiring mistakes and they have to suffer as well, so UDRS is acceptable. But if it has to be made a standard, it needs to be 100% sure about a decision and many a times it has shown not to be cent percent sure. But why this all is coming up after a loss to South Africa from Smith ? It was this same guy who had taunted at Indian batting before the second test and its a poetic justice that it had backfired spectacularly.

  • gaithersburgman on December 29, 2010, 18:15 GMT

    Make UDRS universal and with uniform standards (equipment) in every cricket playing nation. But don't make it a referral system for the " Player" to call. The umpire should insist on it, if there is doubt. If poor umpiring balances out in the end, then an errant UDRS system should accomplish the same. At least with the UDRS, the decisions are more likely to be correct, at critical stages of the game.

  • Sanoop_r on December 29, 2010, 18:13 GMT

    Would Smith talk about the UDRS if SA had won? Would Smith refer to the use of UDRS had some decisions gone SA's way when it should have not? Somebody please tell Smith that 99% of the reason for the loss was due to India playing well. If there are comments about the UDRS, it had to be done before the series and not when something happens...

  • on December 29, 2010, 18:13 GMT

    India might refuse to use the UDRS now, but one day its really going to hurt them .. Not using the UDRS has worked for them so far, in this tour and when Australia toured India, but I really doubt they would be so lucky for long

  • on December 29, 2010, 18:10 GMT

    I agree with Smith. It should be ICC not the country's cricketing boards.

  • on December 29, 2010, 18:10 GMT

    S ofcourse UDRS should had been in such an high profilled series it ll definitely hurt wen decision goes against.Ab's wicket was lucky one for us if he had stayed it C0ULD had hurt us..

  • on December 29, 2010, 18:06 GMT

    hahha...now Smith comes back to UDRS... btw he might have missed the argument punter had with the empires regarding KP's dismissal @ MCG..even the UDRS didn't show any nick .... so it is now proven that India's stance that UDRS is not perfect technology to be used.

  • Agus2010 on December 29, 2010, 18:06 GMT

    Now we came to know how BCCI dominate over ICC, ICC is nothing but the servant concern for BCCI, what a shame, all because of money its all happening

  • on December 29, 2010, 18:06 GMT

    If there was UDRS in this game, South Africa would have won it. Both Decisions for LBW of AB and Boucher would have been overturned with UDRS. Both Deliveries would have have missed the stumps by good 8-10". Indian victories are all tainted by some very controversial umpiring decisions. I agree with Smith that UDRS should be mandatory in every test and one day game. India's objection is regressive and obstructionist.

  • mrmonty on December 29, 2010, 17:54 GMT

    I wonder whether this call for UDRS would have happened if SA won the test? Selective whining, anyone??

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • mrmonty on December 29, 2010, 17:54 GMT

    I wonder whether this call for UDRS would have happened if SA won the test? Selective whining, anyone??

  • on December 29, 2010, 18:06 GMT

    If there was UDRS in this game, South Africa would have won it. Both Decisions for LBW of AB and Boucher would have been overturned with UDRS. Both Deliveries would have have missed the stumps by good 8-10". Indian victories are all tainted by some very controversial umpiring decisions. I agree with Smith that UDRS should be mandatory in every test and one day game. India's objection is regressive and obstructionist.

  • Agus2010 on December 29, 2010, 18:06 GMT

    Now we came to know how BCCI dominate over ICC, ICC is nothing but the servant concern for BCCI, what a shame, all because of money its all happening

  • on December 29, 2010, 18:06 GMT

    hahha...now Smith comes back to UDRS... btw he might have missed the argument punter had with the empires regarding KP's dismissal @ MCG..even the UDRS didn't show any nick .... so it is now proven that India's stance that UDRS is not perfect technology to be used.

  • on December 29, 2010, 18:10 GMT

    S ofcourse UDRS should had been in such an high profilled series it ll definitely hurt wen decision goes against.Ab's wicket was lucky one for us if he had stayed it C0ULD had hurt us..

  • on December 29, 2010, 18:10 GMT

    I agree with Smith. It should be ICC not the country's cricketing boards.

  • on December 29, 2010, 18:13 GMT

    India might refuse to use the UDRS now, but one day its really going to hurt them .. Not using the UDRS has worked for them so far, in this tour and when Australia toured India, but I really doubt they would be so lucky for long

  • Sanoop_r on December 29, 2010, 18:13 GMT

    Would Smith talk about the UDRS if SA had won? Would Smith refer to the use of UDRS had some decisions gone SA's way when it should have not? Somebody please tell Smith that 99% of the reason for the loss was due to India playing well. If there are comments about the UDRS, it had to be done before the series and not when something happens...

  • gaithersburgman on December 29, 2010, 18:15 GMT

    Make UDRS universal and with uniform standards (equipment) in every cricket playing nation. But don't make it a referral system for the " Player" to call. The umpire should insist on it, if there is doubt. If poor umpiring balances out in the end, then an errant UDRS system should accomplish the same. At least with the UDRS, the decisions are more likely to be correct, at critical stages of the game.

  • Bhatin on December 29, 2010, 18:18 GMT

    A bad decision here or there is part of the game. A series of bad decisions is not acceptable though like Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson did in that infamous Sydney test back in 2008. Over the years, players have benefited from umpiring mistakes and they have to suffer as well, so UDRS is acceptable. But if it has to be made a standard, it needs to be 100% sure about a decision and many a times it has shown not to be cent percent sure. But why this all is coming up after a loss to South Africa from Smith ? It was this same guy who had taunted at Indian batting before the second test and its a poetic justice that it had backfired spectacularly.