Sri Lanka v Australia, 1st Test, Galle, 2nd day September 2, 2011

Umpires ask ICC to look in to Hughes' dismissal

130

Simon Taufel, the senior international umpire, has referred Phil Hughes' second innings lbw dismissal in the first Test between Sri Lanka and Australia to the ICC as a serious question mark against the accuracy of Hawk-Eye, the ball tracking technology. Taufel and the officiating umpires Richard Kettleborough, Aleem Dar and Tony Hill have have also sent the relevant footage of the incident to the ICC's cricket operations department.

Hughes was given out lbw on the second evening when he attempted to sweep Tillakaratne Dilshan. Replays indicated that the delivery had spun appreciably from around middle stump towards off, but the Hawk-Eye predicted path had the ball going straight on with the angle from round the wicket to to strike leg stump.

Though he reviewed the decision, Hughes was sent on his way by umpire Kettleborough after consultation with third umpire Hill who is obliged to grant significant weight to the original decision made on the field when he decides whether to reprieve or dismiss a batsman.

In Galle to conduct a third umpire accreditation seminar, Taufel has observed the first two days of the Test in part to assess the impact of technology's inconsistent use and accuracy, having umpired in England's home series against India under vastly different playing conditions and technological aids.

Taufel told ESPNcricinfo that more needed to be done to prove the veracity of devices such as Hawk-Eye, HotSpot and Virtual Eye via independent testing that sits outside the views of broadcasters and suppliers.

"Why can't we tap into technology if the match official is missing a piece of information, and is it right that the match official has to make a decision before technology can be used?" Taufel said. "That's a fundamental question I think we're still working through. Under the current system we're encouraged to make decisions and if a player feels they disagree with that then they've got the right to review. But if they get that wrong twice, then we can't use technology anymore in that innings for that particular team.

"They're the parameters we're working with and that's the value we want to promote within the sport - do we just want to get the obvious mistake fixed up or do we want to get as many decisions right as possible? What are the technology tools we have to achieve that, and then how accurate are those tools? Have we really investigated that from an independent perspective, and have we got a categorical answer with that? Is it reliable on the day, rather than just relying on the provider of that technology to say 'it is x-amount accurate and the result is right' and we just take that on face value?"

The third umpire's job in particular has become increasingly difficult as each series brings a different set of parameters for reviewing decisions, and the technological means by which they may be reviewed. Taufel said players had also become confused on the field by the transient nature of rules relating to referrals and technology.

"From the training perspective we did with the third umpire accreditation module it is very difficult, because there is no consistency of inputs," Taufel said. "How do I train and develop a third umpire when I don't know what technology tools are going to be available on the day?

"From an umpiring perspective, as a third umpire, it is incredibly challenging here [in Sri Lanka] because the frame rates used by Ten Sports per second will be different to the ones used by Sky in Britain. There's ultra-motion available in the UK, there's none of that here. We have Hotspot in the UK, we don't have Hotspot here. The camera rates used by Hawk-Eye here would be different to the camera rates used there.

"Therein lies the challenge of consistency - how can you possibly expect consistent outputs if you've got inconsistent inputs? We've also noticed the players are somewhat confused as to what they can challenge and what they can't. In the UK they couldn't challenge lbws, they could only challenge caught decisions. Here we've gone back to a different system where you can challenge both.

"Surely that's got to be difficult for the players and the match officials to keep adjusting from series to series. Our message as umpires was rather strong at the ICC cricket committee meeting where we said, we either want to use everything or nothing at all, let's try to make it consistently easier for everybody. That's what we want to work towards."

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Kirk-at-Lords on September 4, 2011, 23:45 GMT

    Probably best to drop captain/team referrals, let players appeal in the traditional way, and leave it to the umpires to integrate the technology with their own judgment. The Dravid dismissal in the England ODI is actually a success story. The Hughes dismissal is a marginal but still regrettable error, though he was given out by the on-field umpire in the first place. Ultimately it should be down to the umpires' good judgment -- something which the laws of cricket have never tried to legislate. You will not find the concept about giving the batter the benefit of the doubt anywhere in the official Laws! (End)

  • Kirk-at-Lords on September 4, 2011, 23:43 GMT

    The Hughes dismissal at Galle probably falls in the failure category (Hawk-Eye predicted the wrong path and the umpires followed it). The Dravid dismissal falls partly within the indeterminate category (nothing on HotSpot) and umpires not being misled (the TV umpire went with the stump mike and slow-motion visuals to dismiss based on a noise that seemed to have no source except a feathered nick off the bat). This conclusion was later confirmed unofficially by Sniko. The lesson: live with the 98% and approach but never reach 100% through improvements in machinery and implementation by umpires (which is what Taufel was in Sri Lanka to help umpires do). ... (TBC)

  • Kirk-at-Lords on September 4, 2011, 23:41 GMT

    Technology will never by 100% perfect -- that is an impossible standard to achieve. As Simon Taufel himself has noted, it enhances human umpires (92-96% accurate) to a level of about 98%. Those extra percentage points typically offer reversals of marginal calls -- rarely howlers, which the elite umpires themselves tend not to make. Lurking in the remaining 2% will be indeterminate outcomes from technology (throwing it back to the on-field umpires) and the outright failure of technology that may or may not mislead umpires. ... (TBC)

  • oranjizer on September 4, 2011, 16:56 GMT

    A software may not be bug free... comparing TV replays with tracking software would have clearly shown the difference in Hughes dismissal.. However with the ball swing unpredictable, we cannot be sure if a deviation of the ball was due to an edge or swing of ball just after it went past the bat, same with LBW far ahead of the stumps. Also relying only on sound was also proved incorrect recently. So only a combination of all of these shall put enough doubt in the umpires mind to change the original decision. So improve technology and reduce human errors even after using technology based on whatever we ve learnt from the recent series of failures and wrong decisions.

  • on September 4, 2011, 11:20 GMT

    India and Mr. Dhoni were right, in their assessment of the new technology. Let us use it only for run outs and nothing else.

  • Seaking_alpha on September 4, 2011, 6:53 GMT

    Hmm...The Hawk-Eye is not 100% accurate. Now where have I heard this before

  • RogerC on September 4, 2011, 6:39 GMT

    DRS should be immediately withdrawn from international cricket. Let the authorities test and fine tune it in county level matches.

  • on September 3, 2011, 23:29 GMT

    The hawk eye is a great predictor of a ballistic path based on a few reference point. You will always beat the system if you bend it like Beckham. Wonder how the Hawk Eye would have predicted the "ball of the century". It would have had an issue with the "the spin quartet" who could curl the ball in mid air.

  • slowbouncer on September 3, 2011, 18:10 GMT

    ICC is supposed to be the body that controls cricket. How can there be bilateral agreements on an issue as contentious as this?

  • moko58 on September 3, 2011, 16:34 GMT

    TV viewers have gotten addicted to hawk-eye. So even if ICC suspended hawk-eye the public and commentators will still refer to hawk-eye graphic, and that will create doubt in the minds of the viewers. The technology needs to be perfected or just be used as an aid and no more.

  • Kirk-at-Lords on September 4, 2011, 23:45 GMT

    Probably best to drop captain/team referrals, let players appeal in the traditional way, and leave it to the umpires to integrate the technology with their own judgment. The Dravid dismissal in the England ODI is actually a success story. The Hughes dismissal is a marginal but still regrettable error, though he was given out by the on-field umpire in the first place. Ultimately it should be down to the umpires' good judgment -- something which the laws of cricket have never tried to legislate. You will not find the concept about giving the batter the benefit of the doubt anywhere in the official Laws! (End)

  • Kirk-at-Lords on September 4, 2011, 23:43 GMT

    The Hughes dismissal at Galle probably falls in the failure category (Hawk-Eye predicted the wrong path and the umpires followed it). The Dravid dismissal falls partly within the indeterminate category (nothing on HotSpot) and umpires not being misled (the TV umpire went with the stump mike and slow-motion visuals to dismiss based on a noise that seemed to have no source except a feathered nick off the bat). This conclusion was later confirmed unofficially by Sniko. The lesson: live with the 98% and approach but never reach 100% through improvements in machinery and implementation by umpires (which is what Taufel was in Sri Lanka to help umpires do). ... (TBC)

  • Kirk-at-Lords on September 4, 2011, 23:41 GMT

    Technology will never by 100% perfect -- that is an impossible standard to achieve. As Simon Taufel himself has noted, it enhances human umpires (92-96% accurate) to a level of about 98%. Those extra percentage points typically offer reversals of marginal calls -- rarely howlers, which the elite umpires themselves tend not to make. Lurking in the remaining 2% will be indeterminate outcomes from technology (throwing it back to the on-field umpires) and the outright failure of technology that may or may not mislead umpires. ... (TBC)

  • oranjizer on September 4, 2011, 16:56 GMT

    A software may not be bug free... comparing TV replays with tracking software would have clearly shown the difference in Hughes dismissal.. However with the ball swing unpredictable, we cannot be sure if a deviation of the ball was due to an edge or swing of ball just after it went past the bat, same with LBW far ahead of the stumps. Also relying only on sound was also proved incorrect recently. So only a combination of all of these shall put enough doubt in the umpires mind to change the original decision. So improve technology and reduce human errors even after using technology based on whatever we ve learnt from the recent series of failures and wrong decisions.

  • on September 4, 2011, 11:20 GMT

    India and Mr. Dhoni were right, in their assessment of the new technology. Let us use it only for run outs and nothing else.

  • Seaking_alpha on September 4, 2011, 6:53 GMT

    Hmm...The Hawk-Eye is not 100% accurate. Now where have I heard this before

  • RogerC on September 4, 2011, 6:39 GMT

    DRS should be immediately withdrawn from international cricket. Let the authorities test and fine tune it in county level matches.

  • on September 3, 2011, 23:29 GMT

    The hawk eye is a great predictor of a ballistic path based on a few reference point. You will always beat the system if you bend it like Beckham. Wonder how the Hawk Eye would have predicted the "ball of the century". It would have had an issue with the "the spin quartet" who could curl the ball in mid air.

  • slowbouncer on September 3, 2011, 18:10 GMT

    ICC is supposed to be the body that controls cricket. How can there be bilateral agreements on an issue as contentious as this?

  • moko58 on September 3, 2011, 16:34 GMT

    TV viewers have gotten addicted to hawk-eye. So even if ICC suspended hawk-eye the public and commentators will still refer to hawk-eye graphic, and that will create doubt in the minds of the viewers. The technology needs to be perfected or just be used as an aid and no more.

  • cricketzilla on September 3, 2011, 16:08 GMT

    Hawk-eye's accuracy is probably high when the distance between the point of impact and stumps is less. The chances of cricket ball swinging in that distance are pretty slim.The problem would arise if there is lot of seam movement/deviation of the pitch as then the predictive path would be much more difficult to predict and certainly It's accuracy would be dependent on the accuracy of tools that provide the input data in creating the virtual picture

  • on September 3, 2011, 16:04 GMT

    same happened when sachin given not out by DRS in wc semi against pakisatn

  • ygkd on September 3, 2011, 11:17 GMT

    As an Australian I would have given Hughes out every time, even if the ball-tracking prediction was clearly inadequate. Yet the Dravid caught-behind reversal in the 1st ODI (England v India) was, to me, totally mystifying. That one should be referred to the ICC as well. Aren't the decision reviews meant to overcome shockers? Well the Dravid dismissal certainly came as a shock to this viewer, and I believe to the batsman too. Not sure what the reasoning was. Very odd indeed.

  • umvarma on September 3, 2011, 11:12 GMT

    SpeedCricketThrills! It is actually rocket science. The technology is same and it is pretty complicated. Even leaving out the science, your suggestion has certain issues. 1) Too many factors affect the ball path: pitch, humidity and atmosphere, bowling variations, ball wear and tear etc. You need to get this process done over large number of pitches atmospheric conditions using variety of bowlers and variations(one pitch and dozen bowlers, no way). There is no way to get an acceptable measure of accuracy by testing it in a day with a dozen bowlers. 2) Let some qualified umpires do stand and predict too. If the umpires are getting 93% accuracy and if the technology is getting 90%, then there is not point in using it. If the technology is giving 95%, ICC should certainly keep using it, and let technology develop and become more accurate. The biggest worry is that, there is no proof in the public domain, that ICC's technology is better than umpire predictions.

  • SpeedCricketThrills on September 3, 2011, 6:03 GMT

    Can't understand the 'rocket science' behind testing the degree of accuracy of DRS - Hawk Eye or whatever. On a clear pitch, with no batsman at the crease, get a dozen bowlers to bowl. If the number of times ball hits the wicket matches in Hawk Eye at least over 90%, it is an acceptable technology, better than not using it at all. Sometimes video replay helps give an acceptable decision. The entire process should get over in 1 day. What's all this brouhaha about? ICC, BCCI, journos, etc

  • on September 3, 2011, 4:17 GMT

    Finally, some sense in this debate -- lets independently calibrate all this technology and find out the truth.

    Lets also let the on-field umps use the third ump in any decision where they are not sure and get rid of the silly challenges. Lets just stick to video replays and not some half-baked nonsense that pretends to be advanced technology.

  • Gilliana on September 3, 2011, 4:01 GMT

    I think the third umpire should use both the aligned middle stump cameras as reference and the decision 'out' must only be given if the ball lands between the width of the three stumps hitting below the knee roll if the batsman pad is anywhere within one meter forward from the crease or anywhere between this distance to the stumps. This means that lbw decisions will not be as easy to give.

  • umvarma on September 3, 2011, 2:03 GMT

    Valis! You don't seem to understand the difference between the tracking and prediction. Hawkeye certainly tracks the ball with a much finer resolution compared to human eye. Unfortunately, tracking is the easiest part. The more complex part of prediction involves physics of transition, turbulence, separation and recirculations. Accurate prediction of the ball paths require super-computers running into days and months in solving direct numeric simulations of Navier-Stokes equations. Nobody have an idea on how hawkeye is predicting the path in real time and displaying it to the third umpire, and how validated their models are for different conditions. I am sure, Shane Warne can predict his ball paths many times better compared to any hawkeye predictions, because human brain can understand complex phenomena faster than computers. The phenomena of turbulence that is called by legendary Richard Feynman as "the last great unsolved problem of classical physics" is certainly complex.

  • here2rock on September 2, 2011, 23:07 GMT

    It is open to abuse by the home team. It should not be relied upon unless it is supplied and monitored by ICC.

  • on September 2, 2011, 22:53 GMT

    The Umpires should use the technology themselves and the players should keep out of it. The Umpires are responsible for making decisions. The Players are there to play the game, not to make the decisions themselves. It should not be any of the players business. What is the point with having umpires if the players want to make the decisions for themselves ? The fundemental thing is a player doesn't want ANY Decision to go against them, even if the correct decision is made in the first player. There is too much time wasting with players reviewing correct decisions. There is too much mucking around with ball tracking and other little things. If its out its out and lets get on with the game.

  • on September 2, 2011, 22:50 GMT

    It's not the Hawk-eye itself, but the cameras being used that is the problem. Hawk-eye is reliant on a high frame rate camera system, yet Sri Lanka and India have poor cameras, thus having aq slower camera rate. In England and Asutralia, no matter what Hot-Spot tech says, the cameras have such a high frame rate that Hawk-Eye is accurate. It's not about getting rid of hawk-eye, its about upgrading the cameras. Taufel isn't criticising hawk-eye, he is criticising the different inputs, ie different frame rates in each country. This means that ICC should look at using 1 type of camera at every ground and thus the inputs will be the same.

  • on September 2, 2011, 22:08 GMT

    J have worked in film and television for a long long time and seen technology develop from film through video tape to the current digital platform I work in post production and have watched millions of hours of screen vision at differing speeds and resolutions. Obviously with Hawkeye the more tracking points the better and I reckon that with the PAL standard 25 frames per second Hawkeye is inadequately inaccurate. The other ponderable point with Hawkeye is height prediction. I have seen balls from the spinners in this test bounce incredibly from a full length yet Hawkeye often shows the flight path predicted bounce flattening. In many instances this must be a guess work because the data inputs are not truly defined. I feel there have been many dodgy Hawkeye predictions in this test and that the Hughes dismissal was only one of the Hawkeye tracking technicians' numerous inaccurate ball path predictions.

  • artwrites on September 2, 2011, 19:53 GMT

    I find it unbelievable that an inherently dodgy technology like Hawkeye has been accepted by the ICC. Why not use the fast frame( I forget exactly how many frames per second) video technology instead? That would not give a PREDICTION about the ball's behaviour had it not hit the pad, but it would provide excellent data for either the on-field or off-field umpires to make a rational decision. They could see the spin in extremely slow motion; they could see the effect of the ball hitting a rough spot and perhaps behaving unexpectably BEFORE it hit the pad. Three days ago I tendered $40 to a supermarket in payment for a $35.21 purchase. Their computer correctly registered the purchase via the bar code, the cashier entered the correct amount tendered but the computer came up with a "change due" of $48.36! I've worked with computer technology most of my life and I suspect most professionals in that field will confirm that the delicacy of the PREDICTIONS made by hawkeye are laughable.

  • Alexk400 on September 2, 2011, 19:42 GMT

    I believe slow motion replay is good eough. Ball tracking is still not good it seems. Without review system bucknor type episode will repeat. Some umpires favor some country for some economic reason or bullied by media and powerful people

  • yenjvoy1 on September 2, 2011, 17:17 GMT

    Why do we need technology in Cricket umpiring? International Cricket was played for 100 years before any tech intruded. Just trust the umpires. Errors do happen, but they even out in the end. What's next, roofs on Cricket stadiums to keep out rain? Its a beautiful game, and its not enhanced in anyway by technology. I blame the aussies who started this innovation bandwagon. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

  • CricFan78 on September 2, 2011, 16:57 GMT

    The more you think about it the more it becomes inevitable that hawkeye was made part of DRS after intense lobbying by ECB in ICC. Rest assured you wont see ICC sources giving out such news though.

  • on September 2, 2011, 16:42 GMT

    Same, I believe happened in Semi-Final between India and Pakistan, when umpire gave out to Tendulkar and technology showed that ball was going out to leg side. slow motion showed that this was Doosra.

  • Lahori_Munde on September 2, 2011, 16:35 GMT

    Paul Rone-Clarke @ - Mate the way I see this, BCCI is right with their call against the Hawk Eye. Not sure what you're saying

  • moko58 on September 2, 2011, 16:31 GMT

    I guess BCCI accepted 'HotSpot' since it seemed to just be a replay using infra red. 'Hawk-eye' on the other hand is like a computer graphic which reproduces what the technology 'thinks', which raised their suspicion.

  • Lahori_Munde on September 2, 2011, 16:30 GMT

    So all who're now questioning Sachin's and few other dubious decisions made in past with the help of technology, have you all supported use of Hawk Eye in past? How about the cricket boards of your respective countries? And now based on all your comments, will you agree that BCCI was correct with their objection on using Hawk Eye? I know it's fashion among some to blame BCCI on everything, but the BCCI actually get the credit for taking time out and understand each of these technologies indepth.

  • sashi94 on September 2, 2011, 16:23 GMT

    @ qazi hassan farooki Who is to say that if tendulakar was indeed given out.. the rest of the Indian team would collapse to lose the match. and even if India did lose the match.. would a team dropping tendulkar 4 times go on and beat sri lanka in the final? Its easier to assume that the ball would miss the stumps than to assume all the other things your inteding to say.. so lets say we just won the world cup fair and square!?

  • La_Bangla on September 2, 2011, 16:12 GMT

    @Khurram Gulzar & KarachiKid - Aren't we the one who're wanting all the technologies in the game? Our beloved x-captain Afridi and PCB kept jumping up and down on every opportunity that we got to show our support for the Technology. Why question Sachin or any other dismissal that went against Pakistan. Did we ever put any thoughts in understanding each of these technologies? Sorry, but we can't keep doing the flip-flop when it suits us..

  • on September 2, 2011, 15:06 GMT

    Isn't this what happened during the world cup semi final when Saeed Ajmal bowled an armor to get Tendulker LBW. However Hawkeye showed the ball was turning significantly. Tendulker went on to score the match winning 85. Everyone questioned Saeed Ajmal's integrity when he swore the ball was bowled straight. I guess a review of that LBW would show India won world cup due to a technical error. LOL.

  • aarpee2 on September 2, 2011, 15:00 GMT

    Bhajji in the second test at Trent Bridge was given out lbw off a huge inside edge. the second wicket of the hat-trick for Broad.Rahul Dravid in the second innings was adjudged caught behind off the shoe lace-ultimately the purpose of any exercise should be to see the right decision is made. In the Bhajji episode the crowd and all the viewers on TV including presumably the third umpire witnessed the poor decsion.DRS,Hawk-eye,Hot spot etc.,nothing will be effective and foolproof until the desire to right a wrong is accomplished.Time must come when a decision must be reversed if it is clear the decision is incorrect irrespective of any other factor in the interest of fairplay and justice...

  • on September 2, 2011, 14:55 GMT

    THe ICC will do whatever the BCCI wants. It's as simple as that. Even though the BCCI are (as usual) totally and blatently wrong

  • on September 2, 2011, 14:49 GMT

    What about Taranga Paranavitharan's refer ? So stupid system and stupid decisions.. This making cricket so sick .. :(

  • on September 2, 2011, 14:47 GMT

    Now let's recall Sachin dismissal over turned in world cup in the world cup

  • batnpad on September 2, 2011, 14:41 GMT

    @ RasCric : Get your facts right. BCCI indeed opposed DRS, because it had technology like Hawk-eye which was not accurate. And once it was deemed non-mandatory for DRS, they agreed. Does anyone know what is the official reason behind ICC implemented this DRS ? Is it to remove obvious mistakes or to get maximum decisions right? Looks like Mr.Taufel is unsure too.

  • KarachiKid on September 2, 2011, 14:40 GMT

    Well well well.....good that an authoritative aussy umpire says this. No one took Ajmal and his captain (Afridi) seriously when they said they could not believe Tendulkar LBW decision getting overturned via hawke eye. And then the technology provider backed by ICC started this stupid chorus that a mistake was not possible. Pakistanis still belive Tendulkar was clearly out on 5 in that fateful day !!!

  • on September 2, 2011, 14:22 GMT

    All the technology should only be called for by the umpires to enable them to make their best possible decision. It should be nothing to do with the players. The current system simply undermines the officials and sometimes makes them look stupid. Also no replays or slo-mo's should be broadcast in the ground. Again that simply undermines the umpires .

  • on September 2, 2011, 14:20 GMT

    as @indianpunter said use technology only till the pt of impact - i.e to chk whether a batsman has edged the ball onto his pads, or whether he has nicked the ball. & of course for stumpings & run outs. just forget using DRS for predictions - predictive technology will remain probabilistic always - why get into the realm of the uncertain? & yes, pls let's use only what can be used in all series. for Heaven's sake let there be consistency in the usage, let member boards (read: BCCI) not not have the power to decide ..

  • on September 2, 2011, 14:19 GMT

    If those devices are not consistent, why not get proper equipment. The money paid to match referees could go to fund those equipment .why do we need match referres.

  • sashi94 on September 2, 2011, 14:04 GMT

    I issue i have with hawkeye is.. how does it take the pitch conditions and seam positions into consideration while projecting the path of the ball. Lets say shane warne is bowling into the rough on the 5th day of a test.. one ball hits the rough on the seam and another hits the same rough patch but on a shiny surface of the ball. This should defenitely affect how much the ball turns after pitching.. how does hawkeye differenciate and predict properly? just by guessing oh it turned this much in 10mm so it will turn that much in 3 meters?? how can we rely on this technology? answer me hawkeye fans!

  • Romenevans on September 2, 2011, 13:58 GMT

    Saeed Ajmal to Sachin Tendulkar WC '11, given not by Hawk Eye is the clear indication of how it can be manipulated. Now the whole world will echo india's saga of not to use DRS technology as it is not accurate.

  • coldcoffee123 on September 2, 2011, 13:53 GMT

    I do not know what the fuss is all about. Just leave the LBW decisions to the on-field umpires (except bat-pad and faint edge decisions), as they are the best judge. They are standing exactly in line with the stumps (unlike the bowler who sees the action from a slight angle, and unlike the wk ho is blinded). If the on-field umpire says OUT or NOT OUT, the bowler and the batsman must accept it. They may disagree, but must not challenge the umpire. For all other cricketing decisions, I am all for technology. Taufel is right on the button when he says "do we just want to get the obvious mistake fixed up or do we want to get as many decisions right as possible?" My answer is - fix the obvious mistake. The latter is not impossible but remember we are talking sports and not a 10 billion dollar physics experiment.

  • wolf777 on September 2, 2011, 13:50 GMT

    Always thought the hawk-eye and ball tracking was 'woo doo science'…as far as LBW decisions go, the technology to determine if the ball has pitched in line or if the batsman has played or not add accuracy; however, ball tracking is just a prediction. It is better to leave the prediction part to human judgment.

  • on September 2, 2011, 13:48 GMT

    This decision was dodgy and what would you guys say to the Tendulkar decision in the WC Semi-final?

  • on September 2, 2011, 13:42 GMT

    Dear Daniel -

    Over the past year or so, the BCCI has been criticized, ridiculed and mocked at, to say the absolute least, whenever they have opposed the usage of the current ball-tracking tenchology.

    So now, it would seem that there is additional evidence to support the stance that only BCCI has taken. And yet I find it hard to believe that none of the so-called expert journalists, with more than a mouthful to talk about, would mention how correct BCCI and its understanding of the technology was.

    Would anyone, anyone be eating any humble pies tonight? I guess not.. its too much to expect..

  • moko58 on September 2, 2011, 13:34 GMT

    All the DRS components are basically computer software. All software has to undergo 'verification' ('does it do the needed ?') and 'validation' ('does it really add value to user?'). These are reported in a set of test reports. Where are the test reports of the DRS components ? Why are they not in the public domain where people can see how these components were tested ? What is the confidence interval of the reliability of these products ? All cricket fans have a right to know how they were tested and what were the results of testing.

  • indianpunter on September 2, 2011, 13:34 GMT

    Just use hawkeye till the point of impact and leave the rest to the umpire. this isnt rocket science ! take the predictive path away.

  • SachinIsTheGreatest on September 2, 2011, 13:32 GMT

    @RasCric, on-field umpires who miss those like M/s Harper, De Silva and Bowden don't deserve technology to save them. Anyway, Hot Spot hardly came through blazing in the Laxman and Dravid decision in England recently. We were all left to imagining deviations off the bat.

    @vatsap, I would add Ian Gould to that list too. His umpiring in India recently has been just brilliant.

  • on September 2, 2011, 13:22 GMT

    Consistency is needed everywhere. Not only for batsmen and bowlers.

  • on September 2, 2011, 13:16 GMT

    Most of them don't get the point - as simon taufel pointed out - should technology be used to eliminate most obvious of the mistakes or should they be used to get all/most decisions right? I think one should use technology to correct the obvious mistakes - like umpire giving someone lbw and the batsman is sure that he'd edged it; leave the rest to the umpire. Even the path predicted by hawk-eye is after all a predicted path and you can never be 100% sure abt it.

  • on September 2, 2011, 12:59 GMT

    I seem to recall an occasion a few years ago where Hawk-eye said the ball was going to hit the stumps. Only problem was that the batsman missed the ball altogether and the ball missed the stumps anyway. The problem is not the tracking, but what happens at the last moment, and as anyone knows who watches a class bowler like Warne or Murali, or a good seamer, the movement occurs very late. So a prediction based on where the ball has been does not necessarily predict where it will go.

  • bumsonseats on September 2, 2011, 12:58 GMT

    if guys are saying use on field umpires because its better perhaps the tendulkar decision in the eng v ind were billy bowden gave him not out were it was missing off and leg and hitting 1/2 way up middle. and the raina 1 were it was a big edge. so u cannot say on field is better. i dont believe were it says on field gets 99% right, but i think with the referal system it gets very few wrong. dpk

  • K.A.K on September 2, 2011, 12:57 GMT

    Good fedback provided by the umpires. The tools need to be tested for accuracy by third party. Companies that are developing these technologies will always be biased towards their product. Like in all walks of life, rules and tools will evolve and the players, spectators and officials will have to adopt to it.

  • Karthik_1982 on September 2, 2011, 12:55 GMT

    hahaha... seems like now everyone will be supporting BCCI soon

  • bumsonseats on September 2, 2011, 12:48 GMT

    i noticed in the SL v Aussies game 3 of the LBW decisions the SL batters decided to use the referals used them without asking their partner their opinion so if it was going down or unlikly on that pitch going over the top . would think he knew as much in regards the umpire.dpk

  • on September 2, 2011, 12:47 GMT

    the best example of incosistency of the tecnology and referral is the classic incident of rahul dravid , when he was given out , when there was no evidence on the hot spot.. in the second innings of the last test when he was on 13.. so i believe old is gold...

  • Guthers007 on September 2, 2011, 12:39 GMT

    The most sensible article I've ever seen written on the use of technology. I too have seen some ridiculous decisions given under the current referral system and it's time to move ahead properly, as per Taufel's proposal.

  • Lord.emsworth on September 2, 2011, 12:36 GMT

    Shakespeare's quote, 'O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain!' is the best way to describe the LBW rule. So many controversies and bad blood throughout the entire history of the game.... It never ends not even now when we have super technology at our disposal. Taufel is a showman and would enjoy this but he is just draging the LBW stigma even deeper into the mire. Why not do away with the LBW rule for good? Modifying it is even better. For ex. abolish wilful padding away of the ball on the forward move and Let the batsmen be given out if he is struck on the pad more than five times in his innings or something like that! FGS DO something!!!!

  • Gupta.Ankur on September 2, 2011, 12:33 GMT

    I think such things will improve only if an Aus or Eng player is involved......i remember "Hotspot" inventor had to re-check his product after Laxman was not given out in 3rd test...

  • on September 2, 2011, 12:31 GMT

    This is so ridiculous! In the early stages - i forget which game it was, when this was introduced. The batsman was clean bowled - missed the bat, the pad, the defence ... and it hit the stump cleanly. But the hawk-eye of that said the ball was going over the stumps. At that time, it was NOT official. I wish i had recorded the game, to go back and watch it now. It wasn't conclusive then, and it's not now ... I am not sure, why all this hype to use something to prove the other (in this case, the regular umpiring) is not working, which is a faulty system in itself.

    I think it goes down to 'common sense' of players .. rather than wanting to win, to play the game 'fair'. And also, for the third umpire to overrule any on-field blunders - like the Steve Bucknor ruling Andrew Symonds not-out - caught in the 2nd or 3rd slip :-)

    The use of technology for LBW's are so absurd - waste of time & waste of money.

  • bumsonseats on September 2, 2011, 12:13 GMT

    i think its because of bcci not wanting the full referal is part of the problem, that with the difference of better equipment used in the uk and australia. if india just let the icc say this is what is to be used get on ith it. dpk

  • on September 2, 2011, 11:58 GMT

    My recommendation is that if a Tv umpire is to check an LBW decision, it should be purely based on the replay, and hawk eye shouldn't be the major factor in giving the decision...run outs have a very minimal chance of error when a third umpire reviews, and is solely on the replay..same should be the case, the TV umpire should not have any additional advantage be it hawk eye or any other contraption; as this opens the debate whether TV umpires should be placed onto the field or there shouldnt be any major decisions made on the field. please leave some umpiring charm on the cricket field and also this will be an incentive for them to step up for raising the bar.

  • Gilliana on September 2, 2011, 11:54 GMT

    Let's go back to the old days and leave the decision making solely to the umpires. Cricket was more interesting then. The human eye has no frames and will see exactly as it was. More reliable than technology ofcourse unless the umpire has a third eye.

  • KingOwl on September 2, 2011, 11:46 GMT

    What is clear is all is not right. What is also clear is that the ICC is not on top of things. I do not see these as insurmountable problems at all. We need some smart decision makers at the ICC - I think there are too many cricketers associated with the ICC. While they have the cricketing knowledge, they do not have the kind of excellence needed to solve complex problems. ICC needs to get some academics or PhD's involved to come up with some robust system.

  • katochnr on September 2, 2011, 11:45 GMT

    somewhere dhoni must be smiling in pleasure

  • landl47 on September 2, 2011, 11:41 GMT

    There's a lot of confusion here, not least from people who are talking about the wrong decision- it's Hughes' dismissal which is at issue, not Hussey's. I have said all along that the decisions should be left in the hands of the umpires- all THREE of them. They should make every decision, with the third umpire giving what guidance he can using the technology available. Of course technology should be standard in all venues, but if it isn't the umpires should use what they have. The players should appeal and that's it; no need for referrals since every decision would be reviewed. Incidentally, the field umpire gave Hughes out and Hawk-Eye confirmed it. If the ball had spun, it still would have hit the wicket. Give the game back to the umpires- it's just that there are three of them now.

  • RostokMcSpoons on September 2, 2011, 11:13 GMT

    Valis, you say 'Let's look at this scientifically'... and then you get your science wrong :( You've picked up the common fallacy that the eye can only see at 20-25 frames per second (presumably caused because cinema projects at that speed)... however the eye doesn't work like a camera or a projector - it doesn't see in frames. Please don't spread this misinformation! However I do agree with your fundamental point that (a fully functioning) Hawkeye would be better than the human eye... I'm just not sure it's quite there yet.

  • on September 2, 2011, 11:02 GMT

    To be fair, if hawk eye is 99% accurate you will still get the odd quirk one time in every hundred. I think it would be wrong to presume the system is generally innacurate based on one dodgy decision. I also don't think we should be praising the BCCI too highly when we consider they've supported the much more questionable 'hot spot' technology as well.

    Coming back to hawk eye, surely we have all the data we need to assess its accuracy. In every game where hawkeye has been used, there will have been a number of different deliveries that will have flown through to the keeper (ducked bouncers, deliveries wide of off stump.) Surely someone would need to do to assess its accuracy would be to compare the hawkeye data from these to the TV footage?

  • natasrik on September 2, 2011, 10:10 GMT

    DRS is definitely good tool, irrespective of the drawbacks. Infact hughes decision, should have gone in favour of the batsman, the replay suggested the ball must have impacted some portion of the glove before it went on to hit the pads. As far as Simon Taufel is concerned, no doubt he is a great umpire but he also made a clear blunder when he was unable to see the inside edge of raina before it hit the pads and he was given out LBW, If and only if the BCCI had agreed for LBW decisions can be referred, Raina might have got it correct and Taufel wrong. So it is better to use DRS when the stakes are high these days.

  • Rajeev129 on September 2, 2011, 10:09 GMT

    Nicely said Simon. Technology used by Sky and 9 channels are very strong. Ten is really poorer compared to them, so controversies always arises with DRS in Srilanka, Pak, Zim. May be this is the reason why India is not opting for DRS, since their TV rights are with Neo (whose quality is far below than Ten). Who knows even BCCI would have wished to use it if their TV rights are being allotted to ESPN.

  • atuljain1969 on September 2, 2011, 10:05 GMT

    The simple reply reply to all these querries are, use Hawk eye or Hotspot only for decisions other then LBW. It is mostly in LBW decision that there is ambiguity. However where a LBW appeal is involved , Team should be given a chance to refer it for any connection with the Bat or gloves for a proper decision making instead of just barring all the LBW decision from referral like in the India -England series.

  • katwash on September 2, 2011, 9:57 GMT

    I have been sceptical of Hawk-Eye, and that decision and projection of the delivery, that showed it hitting off stump, when it was going down legside proves that it needs more testing.

  • Stark62 on September 2, 2011, 9:56 GMT

    Basically, hawk-eye cost Pak the all important Tendulkar wicket?

    I think hawk-eye may be prone to making errors on a spinning tracks!

  • VEXXZ on September 2, 2011, 9:49 GMT

    If you are not SURE , then leave all decisions to the on field Umpire . I guess India has a VALID point .

  • Baundele on September 2, 2011, 9:38 GMT

    Umpires should not consider the technology as their rival, they should rather use it as their helping hands in making correct decisions. Technology is there, because umpires were giving poor and biased decisions. Other sports also use umpire decision review system.

  • on September 2, 2011, 9:35 GMT

    then what abt the decision of tendulkar at world cup semis,i think there was also enough doubt to let the ball miss leg-stumps

  • on September 2, 2011, 9:33 GMT

    There does seem to be a possible compromise between BCCI and the nations that want full DRS. Especially as umpires are now questioning the ball tracking element too. Abandon the ball-tracking part for the moment, but allow limited DRS for LBW decisions. i.e where the ball pitched (hawkeye), was there an edge (hotspot/snicko/slow motion), and did it strike the pad outside off (slow mo/hawkeye)? This would have solved most of the dodgy LBWs in the recent England-India series instead of goin into it with the ridiculous 'no LBW reviews' rule we had. Why not? None of this is the ball tracking technology the BCCI is so against. I didn't see this Hughes decision, but is it being cynical to suggest the BCCI is somehow behind this? People are already moving to their point of view....

  • on September 2, 2011, 9:31 GMT

    Throw the computers and graphic out of cricket. The decision of LBW cannot be made by third umpire. If it is not decided by field umpires, then why we to have umpires in the field. Better get traffic police and computers on field. let us not screw the "cricket" more. it is better to played in its original ways.

  • rumcork69 on September 2, 2011, 9:26 GMT

    Hawk Eye needs alot of work, thanks to the BCCI (although not very fond of them)

  • PeteB on September 2, 2011, 9:26 GMT

    I agree with Taufel and the Indians and re Hawkeye. I think it's useful for checking whether a ball pitched in line and as a rough guide to whether a ball hits the stumps. But not much else. Hotspot is a bit dubious as well.

  • Valis on September 2, 2011, 9:25 GMT

    Let's look at this scientifically and not emotionally. The human eye is a total kludge and has evolved to only see small to medium objects moving at slow to medium speeds. Because of the persistence of vision the human eye can only see 22 frames per second. Assuming the ball is travelling at 140 km/h, if you do the calculation that means the eye will only see the ball every 1,8 metres! The Hawkeye camera runs at 1000 frames per second, that means it has a resolution of 2 centimetres! So any person that still believes the human eye is more accurate than the technology has no clue of the laws of physics or how the world works. Q.E.D.

  • on September 2, 2011, 9:25 GMT

    Doesn't mean the BCCI are right at all...

  • crikbuff on September 2, 2011, 9:24 GMT

    The problem with hawk eye is the projection. So why can't we see the actual path of the ball with the technology, and then allow the umpire to judge whether the ball wud've hit the stumps.

  • on September 2, 2011, 9:23 GMT

    wht abt the Tendulkar great escape in WC Semi Final???

  • RasCric on September 2, 2011, 9:23 GMT

    BoonBoom, BCCI opposed DRS all togather, not just hawk-eye. And that was pure stupidity. Seeing batsman given lbw despite huge inside edges. Ball picthing outside leg stupmp, clear egdes not given out, You name it, was just frustrating. No one cares if hawk-eye stays or go, but the batsman should have a chance to review when he thinks he is not out.

  • on September 2, 2011, 9:20 GMT

    I thought BCCI was evil and destroying the sport while technology was perfect and we should all unquestioningly bow to the demands of England and Australia, our overlords in the Imperial Cricket Conference?

  • SachinIsTheGreatest on September 2, 2011, 9:12 GMT

    Sit back India, BCCI, Tendulkar and Dhoni and watch the fun!!

  • sailendra_kuridi on September 2, 2011, 9:12 GMT

    yes .. simon is abs right ....

    when i watched tv replay , no way i felt that was out .. hawk dint give d right decision that time

    ball was comfortably missing the offstump !

  • on September 2, 2011, 9:09 GMT

    I think icc should keep it simple. if the technology is 100% accurate use it or else discard it. just learn from FIFA. Despite controversies surrounding goals they have relied only on human factor. i know that would turn the outcome of a result but then sport is like that. fortune keeps fluctuating. moreover use of technology is making umpires off-guard.its confusing as well. look at the cost factor as well. Few member boards & other affiliates would find it taxing & its not worth it.

  • on September 2, 2011, 9:07 GMT

    How could a system track where the ball gets turn......Its not possible to get correct decision from Hawk-eye.

  • on September 2, 2011, 9:06 GMT

    The fact that the software indicated impact early (so not seeing the spin and predicting it's going straight) suggests a problem with the camera's rather then the tracking software.

    Writing a piece of software to follow an object would take like 50 mins max, i can't believe the code for this aspect has failures/bugs.

  • on September 2, 2011, 9:05 GMT

    BCCI WIN ...BRAVO..THIS IS WHAT BCCI WAS OPPOSING..IN IND VS ENGLAND SERIES THE TECHNOLOGY WAS EXPOSED..NOW THIS HAS PROVED THAT DRS IS NOT UPTO THE MARK..BCCI WAS RIGHT..EVERYONE WAS BLASTING THE BCCI FOR THIS..NOT THEY HAVE BEEN PROVED RIGHT

  • on September 2, 2011, 9:03 GMT

    Now what ICC and the whole world going to answer for a question from a respectful umpire...?

  • knpradeep77 on September 2, 2011, 9:03 GMT

    i dont think it can be 100% accurate, can have some odd errors like when it fails to notice the effect of spin/swing etc. probably an intelligent micro-chip embedded ball should be sensed with electronic sensors to exactly predict the path of the ball and not with cameras which uses vision. why because, it can fail to notice the path of the ball especially if the ball is old and dirty or off shame

  • arsalansallu on September 2, 2011, 9:02 GMT

    well Hawk-Eye has been questionable when used on spin bowling... remember the WC-Semi final, Sachin was given not out on Saeed Ajmal's delivery, Hawk-Eye showed significant turn... while Saeed Ajmal was screaming that it was a doosra, how can it turn! ICC needs to look into this thoroughly, take all the dobtful decisions of past year as test case and improve this system otherwise we will come back to square one

  • popcorn on September 2, 2011, 9:02 GMT

    Excellent decision by the world's best umpire simon Taufel.The third Umpire NEED NOT HAVE gone by the Technology ALONE. He could have used HIS OWN JUGEMENT. Like he did tio give Mike Hussey OUT off a feather off his glove when reviews were inconclusive ?! ?!.

  • on September 2, 2011, 8:58 GMT

    this is an outlier, no one said that Hawk-eye is perfect. I still think hawk-eye should be used everywhere but thats just my opinion

  • on September 2, 2011, 8:56 GMT

    DHONI and BCCI was CORRECT..... now best umpire in the world Simon taufel & Aleem dar agree with us.....

  • rustyryan on September 2, 2011, 8:55 GMT

    Ha Ha Shame on others who argued for Hawk-Eye. Finally Indians made the correct decisions.

  • Tarzansree on September 2, 2011, 8:55 GMT

    BCCI was standing alone against it and ppl critisized BCCI for it....

  • Raju_Iyer on September 2, 2011, 8:52 GMT

    We have had the on-field umpires asking the third umpire for help for run-outs for a long time now and that seems to have worked well. In the same manner, the on-field umpire should be given the liberty to ask the opinion of the third umpire, when he is not sure of bat-pad appeals or wants to review an lbw decision before making up his mind. To make it simple, they should be provided with tablets on which they can see the replays themselves. The whole business of players appealing against a decision goes aginsts the basic spirit of the game. So let us bury this UDRS idea, once and for all

  • Green_and_Gold on September 2, 2011, 8:47 GMT

    DRS should be used to overturn the big mistakes from the umpires. You dont need hawk eye to work out if the ball pitched outside leg, hit inline or if there was an inside edge so you can still use the DRS for LBWs. As for the predictive element - that still needs work, however without the DRS Hughes would have been out anyway. Captains and players should know that if they appeal on the basis of prediction then technology wont be 100% accurate.

  • on September 2, 2011, 8:43 GMT

    It's really strange to see the umpires who were against BCCI for not using Hawk-Eye or support any form of technology to come out ad question the technology themselves. It is true technology is not 100% accurate and people will be given out when in fact they weren't. Hughes dismissal prompted a question in this match about Hawk-Eye, but I don't know if anyone had seen India's test matches against England, when Laxman was given not out when there was clearly a faint nick on his outside edge, but when referred he was given not out because umpire couldn't see a white spot on his bat. On the other hand, in final test Dravid was given out when apparently he bat-padded the ball. When looking in slow motion ball past the bat without touching it and when hot spot was called, he was given out because there was a white mark there, but everyone said it was there before the bat even got closer to the ball. This really does question the use of technology.

  • Chris_Howard on September 2, 2011, 8:40 GMT

    So, simply give the third-umpire the right to ignore the technology if he thinks it's wrong. So if he has doubts that the tracking shown is correct, let him defer the decision to the umpire who called it.

  • on September 2, 2011, 8:39 GMT

    Absolutely what do you thin Ian botham , Nasser hussain and the like on sky who keep mocking the BCCI about its decision. Look The BCCI has a view and the fact that it has a differrent view to others seems to be because it can think....... and more importantly in the cricketing world the BCCI is equal to all the boards but is the first amongst the equals ..... remember he who pays the piper calls the tune.

  • on September 2, 2011, 8:38 GMT

    Dear @BoonBoom, What about the other umpiring decisions that were overturned by DRS ? Just because 1-2 decisions out of dozens are not correctly assessed by DRS does not mean that it should not used. It still is miles better than human eyes of umpires. If you keep waiting for a technology that is 100% accurate then you need to wait for million years, as nothing is 100% in this world. And why BCCI didn't use it is becuase they are stubborn and they just wait for opportunities to tell the world who is boss. They finally will accept it. Brave ICC/DRS ;)

  • on September 2, 2011, 8:35 GMT

    Now this is prove that BCCI is right and all other board also support BCCI.

  • on September 2, 2011, 8:30 GMT

    A similar thing happened in Ajmal vs Tendulkar episode (Semi Final). Ajmal had bowled a doosra but Hawk eye predicted something else.. If we do have to use a technology why not something cent percent accurate..

  • on September 2, 2011, 8:28 GMT

    The purpose of the DRS is to correct howling injustices, if on review "the available technology what ever that maybe" can't confirm obviously & conclusively that the original decision by the on field umpire was wrong, then just stay with the on field umpires decision. The only problem now is the 3rd umpires are wasting a lot of time and trying to Hard to find a reason to change marginal decisions. The 3rd umpire should not be judging whether the batsmen is out or not, he should be judging whether the on field umpires decision was so obviously wrong that it needs reversing.

  • Indian_Fan09 on September 2, 2011, 8:25 GMT

    I agree that Hawk-Eye is flawed. The first decision that comes to my mind is that Ajmal LBW appeal against Tendulkar at the semi finals of world cup!! I cant believe how that was not out!! We were lucky and rode our luck to glory :)

  • ThKhan on September 2, 2011, 8:25 GMT

    Hawk Eye has considerably decreased the Umpiring decision making errors. A decision like of Hughes happens 01 out of 300 appeals. If it would be in India/Eng series, it would be more interesting series. One cannot fight against technology. BCCI is denying the technology accepting which sooner or later will be must in the game. I would definitely say that it should be in the game, but definitely there is always a room of improvements, just like 3rd Umpire run out and footage improvements.

  • sgthacker on September 2, 2011, 8:23 GMT

    Only 2 comments for this. BCCI bashers and over the moon supporters of technology have gone into a hiding it seems. Thanksfully the concerns are raised by the elite umpires. Same concerns raised by BCCI attracted severe criticism

  • on September 2, 2011, 8:23 GMT

    It's astonishing that any technology would be used at all before it was tested. Why didn't the ICC think to check out Hawkeye etc. in the first place, rather than throwing it into Test cricket without properly verifying that it actually works?

  • johnathonjosephs on September 2, 2011, 8:22 GMT

    Ummm ok.... love how all the indians are getting happy -> but for no reason! there's something called a third umpire to get rid of howlers from the UDRS (which is far less than howlers by umpires). Obviously according to the Indians, the decision would have had hughes not out, but its not. Thats because UDRS is also equipped with the human third umpire. In the India/England test when Dravid edged a ball and hot spot showed nothing and ACCORDING TO THE UDRS HE SHOULD HAVE STAYED. Yet the 3rd Umpire ruled him out. Why? Because he's entitled to do so. Think of UDRS like this. If an umpire on the field makes a decision, and the team has a problem, they refer it to a computer umpire. The computer umpire makes a decision (impact in line/pitched in line/hitting stumps/etc) and the Head Umpire (3rd umpire) looks at both the on field and the machine and makes a decision. Would you rather have that umpiring or would you rather have just an onfield umpire who makes a decision in less than 5 secs

  • AidanFX on September 2, 2011, 8:21 GMT

    Can I just add to this: When will the ICC have the sense to drop the no ball from reviews. It allows a situation where a player gets struck deal plumb on the pads or nicks it (bat/goves) and appeals hoping it may have been a no ball. Then you have players like Watson who never believe they are out (when clearly they are dead plumb) who appeal anyway. This is out of the spirit of the game. In any given match, umps would miss marginal no balls, most are called. Throughout history we can be sure many players have been dismissed on marginal no balls, but there has seldom been huge controversy over it.

  • azzaman333 on September 2, 2011, 8:21 GMT

    No one ever said the technology was perfect, that's literally impossible. It there to reduce the frequency of errors, which it has done, and is still doing. As long as they find out why HawkEye appeared to fail on this occasion, and they are able to rectify it, it's still better than the previous system.

  • nrms on September 2, 2011, 8:21 GMT

    An Aussie umpire criticising an Aussie player getting out; depite the on-field umpires giving him out, and the technology agreeing? I know umpires are meant to be impartial, etc. but at the same time you can see why I'm sceptical. Personally, I'm not a fan of the use of technology in sport. If you can't do it all levels you shouldn't do it at all. However, we have it, and so we need to use it as best we can. To me, the biggest problem is the inconsistencies which Taufel has raised. The solution... The ICC needs to get a backbone and tell the test-playing nations what technology will be used, and the parameters it is to be used under. Why is so much down to the broadcasters? The ICC makes the rules, the ICC should enforce them and provide the means to do so! Sport is meant to be a fair competition with a consistent set of rules. Here is yet another failing of the ICC which has made the sport half lottery as to what conditions you paly under!

  • Geordie613 on September 2, 2011, 8:21 GMT

    Its not the first time technology has been discarded after being found flawed. We all remember the SA ENG semifinal at WC1992, when under the rain rule at the time, Sa's target of 22 off 13 balls was revised to 22 off 1 ball. Those were the rules at the time so SA had to choke on them and get knocked out. One day the D/L method may be superseded by a superior one. Leave hawkeye in place til we get something better.

  • Fifthman on September 2, 2011, 8:16 GMT

    More partisan comment, when it is the technology that should be under the spotlight. What everyone (except certain Indian factions) want is consistency, both of the way the technology works and the way it is applied by the umpires. No-one is saying that the technology is perfect, but it is improving all the time and if it stops obviously wrong decisions being made, then it should be employed. </b> The problem, as Taufel indicates, is that the technology changes according to where it is deployed. It appears from his comments that the frame-rate is higher in the UK than in SL, and so more accurate predictions and decisions can be made. Also, all the tools should be available to the umpire everywhere, not the current piecemeal, pick and mix approach. </b> Broadcasters and boards should be forced to employ consistent high standards, not try and save a bit of cash by lowering the quality of the technology or missing bits out.

  • on September 2, 2011, 8:14 GMT

    well...how come they didnt notice this in thw India vs Pak semis ,then?????? Saeed Ajmal had Sachin Tendulkar absolutely trapped in front of middle stump,on the back foot,with not much turn,but Mr.Hawk-eye said that ball was gonna miss leg-stump!!!

  • on September 2, 2011, 8:14 GMT

    I have read a lot about the debates on DRS, its inconsistency and its usefulness in avoiding horribly bad decisions. My only question for the ICC rules makers is that why dont u use the technology only to the extent of avoiding horribly wrong decisions, the biggest one being given out LBW with a huge inside edge. I think the decision of the on field umpire should only be reversed in case of LBW decisions when ball pitches outside leg stump or inside edge LBW howlers. There is no further need to undermine the authority of umpires by involving DRS on every goddamn decision. The technology must be used with discretion so that its usefulness always out weighs its fallacies. By involving DRS in controversies, we would deprive the game of the positives DRS has brought to the game.

  • Devmanus on September 2, 2011, 8:06 GMT

    and now arguments after arguments.. conditions are different, how accurate is the technology...different cameras, differerent people to judge... when it comes to them then listen only arguments and arguments, when it BCCI then only oppose, financial powerhouse, bullying, muscle power etc... all negative propoganga... such bunch of inexperienced people will distroy cricket.....

  • Devmanus on September 2, 2011, 8:02 GMT

    and ppl say that BCCI is bad when it it against the accuracy of the Howk eye technology.... wake up guys.... see the facts now even umpires are complaining about it.... dont put someone in the bad light just because.....

  • Tjoeps on September 2, 2011, 8:01 GMT

    I agree fully with this viewpoint, the input has to be cosistent, where is the sponsor that Lorgat was bragging about? Let's cleanup this mess!

  • vatsap on September 2, 2011, 8:01 GMT

    Some guys make us happy to watch the game, just the way they perform. Simon Taufel, Aleem Dar and Asad Rauf are 3 guys in recent times. They might not have the characteristics of a Dickie Bird or David Sheppard, but they bring in immense pride to the job and are close to perfectionists.

  • on September 2, 2011, 7:56 GMT

    I think Hawk-Eye is not give the correct decision at all time...... what do you guys think about it????

  • BoonBoom on September 2, 2011, 7:54 GMT

    so the indians are spot on if they dont like hawk-eys!!! Bravo BCCI!!!

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • BoonBoom on September 2, 2011, 7:54 GMT

    so the indians are spot on if they dont like hawk-eys!!! Bravo BCCI!!!

  • on September 2, 2011, 7:56 GMT

    I think Hawk-Eye is not give the correct decision at all time...... what do you guys think about it????

  • vatsap on September 2, 2011, 8:01 GMT

    Some guys make us happy to watch the game, just the way they perform. Simon Taufel, Aleem Dar and Asad Rauf are 3 guys in recent times. They might not have the characteristics of a Dickie Bird or David Sheppard, but they bring in immense pride to the job and are close to perfectionists.

  • Tjoeps on September 2, 2011, 8:01 GMT

    I agree fully with this viewpoint, the input has to be cosistent, where is the sponsor that Lorgat was bragging about? Let's cleanup this mess!

  • Devmanus on September 2, 2011, 8:02 GMT

    and ppl say that BCCI is bad when it it against the accuracy of the Howk eye technology.... wake up guys.... see the facts now even umpires are complaining about it.... dont put someone in the bad light just because.....

  • Devmanus on September 2, 2011, 8:06 GMT

    and now arguments after arguments.. conditions are different, how accurate is the technology...different cameras, differerent people to judge... when it comes to them then listen only arguments and arguments, when it BCCI then only oppose, financial powerhouse, bullying, muscle power etc... all negative propoganga... such bunch of inexperienced people will distroy cricket.....

  • on September 2, 2011, 8:14 GMT

    I have read a lot about the debates on DRS, its inconsistency and its usefulness in avoiding horribly bad decisions. My only question for the ICC rules makers is that why dont u use the technology only to the extent of avoiding horribly wrong decisions, the biggest one being given out LBW with a huge inside edge. I think the decision of the on field umpire should only be reversed in case of LBW decisions when ball pitches outside leg stump or inside edge LBW howlers. There is no further need to undermine the authority of umpires by involving DRS on every goddamn decision. The technology must be used with discretion so that its usefulness always out weighs its fallacies. By involving DRS in controversies, we would deprive the game of the positives DRS has brought to the game.

  • on September 2, 2011, 8:14 GMT

    well...how come they didnt notice this in thw India vs Pak semis ,then?????? Saeed Ajmal had Sachin Tendulkar absolutely trapped in front of middle stump,on the back foot,with not much turn,but Mr.Hawk-eye said that ball was gonna miss leg-stump!!!

  • Fifthman on September 2, 2011, 8:16 GMT

    More partisan comment, when it is the technology that should be under the spotlight. What everyone (except certain Indian factions) want is consistency, both of the way the technology works and the way it is applied by the umpires. No-one is saying that the technology is perfect, but it is improving all the time and if it stops obviously wrong decisions being made, then it should be employed. </b> The problem, as Taufel indicates, is that the technology changes according to where it is deployed. It appears from his comments that the frame-rate is higher in the UK than in SL, and so more accurate predictions and decisions can be made. Also, all the tools should be available to the umpire everywhere, not the current piecemeal, pick and mix approach. </b> Broadcasters and boards should be forced to employ consistent high standards, not try and save a bit of cash by lowering the quality of the technology or missing bits out.

  • Geordie613 on September 2, 2011, 8:21 GMT

    Its not the first time technology has been discarded after being found flawed. We all remember the SA ENG semifinal at WC1992, when under the rain rule at the time, Sa's target of 22 off 13 balls was revised to 22 off 1 ball. Those were the rules at the time so SA had to choke on them and get knocked out. One day the D/L method may be superseded by a superior one. Leave hawkeye in place til we get something better.