Comments on: The “Law” of UDRS http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sciencetechnology/the-%e2%80%9claw%e2%80%9d-of-udrs Powered by Webshore Mon, 13 Apr 2015 04:31:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anirudh Krishnan http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sciencetechnology/the-%e2%80%9claw%e2%80%9d-of-udrs#comment-2728 Anirudh Krishnan Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:37:52 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=2352#comment-2728 Anisha, Agreed, I made a mistake in my reply to Arghya and Suhrith about the 2.5 metre rule not being part of the rule book (in fact I have myself quoted the rule in my post !). I stick to my stand regarding the need for subjectivity in the UDRS. I agree with the benefits of relying wholly on technology, but as I said in my reply to Arghya and Suhrith, I do not think it is fair on batsman if this is done overnight. Anisha,

Agreed, I made a mistake in my reply to Arghya and Suhrith about the 2.5 metre rule not being part of the rule book (in fact I have myself quoted the rule in my post !).

I stick to my stand regarding the need for subjectivity in the UDRS. I agree with the benefits of relying wholly on technology, but as I said in my reply to Arghya and Suhrith, I do not think it is fair on batsman if this is done overnight.

]]> By: Anisha http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sciencetechnology/the-%e2%80%9claw%e2%80%9d-of-udrs#comment-2727 Anisha Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:31:12 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=2352#comment-2727 Hi Anirudh. Just wanted to point out that the 2.5 metre rule is very much a part of the ICC rulebook (see http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/rules_and_regulations.php). Apparently it has come up before in the seventh ODI between Australia and England, earlier this year. Tim Paine had walked down the pitch to flick Plunkett to the on-side but missed the ball. He was given not out and the decision was reviewed. Hawkeye showed that the ball was hitting the stumps and the umpire decided to go with the technology despite the fact that Paine was so far down the wicket. The cricinfo commentary is interesting: seems to suggest the lbw decision was a real surprise because the batsman was so far down the wicket. My opinion, for what it's worth: the DRS (apparently the umpires object to the name UDRS) is used in a restricted format with only 2 reviews per innings. When it is used, then surely we must let the call be made on the basis of the technology! If the technology is so bad that we cant trust it, then why are we using it anyway? If it is strategically used, it only makes the game more interesting. If it does eliminate the occasional howler, then that's great news. It certainly doesn't devalue the importance of the onfield umpire in such a limited context. And if occasionally a borderline decision goes against a batsman, well, too bad. It happens all the time with the onfield umpires anyway and it happens to the bowlers all the time! But, as Arghya says, attempting to use technology, flashing it on television sets, and then randomly overruling it just makes the ICC and the umps look incredibly stupid. If nothing else, it's bad PR and adds little to the game in terms of "fairness" or "justice" or whatever they're going for. Hi Anirudh. Just wanted to point out that the 2.5 metre rule is very much a part of the ICC rulebook (see http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/rules_and_regulations.php). Apparently it has come up before in the seventh ODI between Australia and England, earlier this year. Tim Paine had walked down the pitch to flick Plunkett to the on-side but missed the ball. He was given not out and the decision was reviewed. Hawkeye showed that the ball was hitting the stumps and the umpire decided to go with the technology despite the fact that Paine was so far down the wicket. The cricinfo commentary is interesting: seems to suggest the lbw decision was a real surprise because the batsman was so far down the wicket.

My opinion, for what it’s worth: the DRS (apparently the umpires object to the name UDRS) is used in a restricted format with only 2 reviews per innings. When it is used, then surely we must let the call be made on the basis of the technology! If the technology is so bad that we cant trust it, then why are we using it anyway?

If it is strategically used, it only makes the game more interesting. If it does eliminate the occasional howler, then that’s great news. It certainly doesn’t devalue the importance of the onfield umpire in such a limited context. And if occasionally a borderline decision goes against a batsman, well, too bad. It happens all the time with the onfield umpires anyway and it happens to the bowlers all the time!

But, as Arghya says, attempting to use technology, flashing it on television sets, and then randomly overruling it just makes the ICC and the umps look incredibly stupid. If nothing else, it’s bad PR and adds little to the game in terms of “fairness” or “justice” or whatever they’re going for.

]]> By: Anirudh Krishnan http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sciencetechnology/the-%e2%80%9claw%e2%80%9d-of-udrs#comment-2725 Anirudh Krishnan Wed, 02 Mar 2011 20:29:55 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=2352#comment-2725 @Arghya and Suhrith- I think Suhrith provides the rationale for the "benefit of doubt" rule. The reason I believe that the rule should still be applicable is that even though there are no uncovered wickets these days and the percentage of wickets that do strange things have come down, you do occasionally get wickets which are dust bowls and in that sense cause the same problems that uncovered wickets used to cause. The reason I believe that subjectivity is essential is that it is a cricketing convention that generally when the batsman is well forward and is playing a shot, there is always a doubt as to whether the ball is going to hit the stumps (this is not a blanket rule and where the ball is doing nothing like in the Ian Bell case, even traditionally umpires would have given it out) and in such a situation the benefit of doubt is given to the batsman. Batsmen who have grown up playing certain shots to certain balls and padding away certain balls based on this rule. For instance when a bowler like Murali bowls an off spinner pitching on middle and leg a batsman traditionally plays the sweep shot instinctively as even if he is struck on the pad they he is most likely to be given "Not Out" as the ball might be slipping down the leg side. What a blanket objective rule does is change this position. Hawk Eye might suggest that the ball is clipping the edge of the leg stump and hence the batsman may be given out (this is what happened to Sachin Tendulkar in Sri Lanka in 2008). I am not making a principled argument against an objective standard, but I believe introducing such a standard overnight is unfair against batsmen. Perhaps we could explore introducing such a system at the domestic level in every cricketing nation and after a period of say 5 years introduce it internationally. This would give batsmen a chance to acclimatize to the rule. Going to the 2.5 metre rule- it is not a rule recognized in the ICC Rulebook. It seems to be a rule introduced for the purpose of the World Cup. I think the 2.5 metre rule makes no sense- how can you have a uniform 2.5 metre rule for Perth and Colombo where the bounce of the pitches are clearly different? I believe that irrespective of how far away the ball pitches the subjectivity should continue to exist and the umpire/ third umpire should take a call after seeing the slow motion pictures. You may argue that subjectivity resulted in the Ian Bell decision going wrong. I think this was just a blatant error on the part of the umpire. It is like the third umpire making a mistake while deciding on a run-out call. Merely because these errors occasionally occur, it does not mean that subjectivity per se should be done away with. @Arghya and Suhrith- I think Suhrith provides the rationale for the “benefit of doubt” rule. The reason I believe that the rule should still be applicable is that even though there are no uncovered wickets these days and the percentage of wickets that do strange things have come down, you do occasionally get wickets which are dust bowls and in that sense cause the same problems that uncovered wickets used to cause.

The reason I believe that subjectivity is essential is that it is a cricketing convention that generally when the batsman is well forward and is playing a shot, there is always a doubt as to whether the ball is going to hit the stumps (this is not a blanket rule and where the ball is doing nothing like in the Ian Bell case, even traditionally umpires would have given it out) and in such a situation the benefit of doubt is given to the batsman. Batsmen who have grown up playing certain shots to certain balls and padding away certain balls based on this rule. For instance when a bowler like Murali bowls an off spinner pitching on middle and leg a batsman traditionally plays the sweep shot instinctively as even if he is struck on the pad they he is most likely to be given “Not Out” as the ball might be slipping down the leg side. What a blanket objective rule does is change this position. Hawk Eye might suggest that the ball is clipping the edge of the leg stump and hence the batsman may be given out (this is what happened to Sachin Tendulkar in Sri Lanka in 2008). I am not making a principled argument against an objective standard, but I believe introducing such a standard overnight is unfair against batsmen. Perhaps we could explore introducing such a system at the domestic level in every cricketing nation and after a period of say 5 years introduce it internationally. This would give batsmen a chance to acclimatize to the rule.

Going to the 2.5 metre rule- it is not a rule recognized in the ICC Rulebook. It seems to be a rule introduced for the purpose of the World Cup. I think the 2.5 metre rule makes no sense- how can you have a uniform 2.5 metre rule for Perth and Colombo where the bounce of the pitches are clearly different? I believe that irrespective of how far away the ball pitches the subjectivity should continue to exist and the umpire/ third umpire should take a call after seeing the slow motion pictures.

You may argue that subjectivity resulted in the Ian Bell decision going wrong. I think this was just a blatant error on the part of the umpire. It is like the third umpire making a mistake while deciding on a run-out call. Merely because these errors occasionally occur, it does not mean that subjectivity per se should be done away with.

]]> By: Suhrith http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sciencetechnology/the-%e2%80%9claw%e2%80%9d-of-udrs#comment-2723 Suhrith Wed, 02 Mar 2011 15:30:01 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=2352#comment-2723 I think this rule of according the benefit of doubt to the batsmen needs to go. When they played games on uncovered pitches, with the ball tending to do all kinds of things off the wicket, it made sense to accord the benefit to the batsmen. But in what has increasingly become a batsmen's game, it is time to remove such a benefit and ensure that the right decision is reached, even if its only marginal. I think this rule of according the benefit of doubt to the batsmen needs to go. When they played games on uncovered pitches, with the ball tending to do all kinds of things off the wicket, it made sense to accord the benefit to the batsmen. But in what has increasingly become a batsmen’s game, it is time to remove such a benefit and ensure that the right decision is reached, even if its only marginal.

]]> By: Arghya http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sciencetechnology/the-%e2%80%9claw%e2%80%9d-of-udrs#comment-2722 Arghya Wed, 02 Mar 2011 08:26:21 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=2352#comment-2722 So, what do you make of the Ian Bell not out? According to the rules, the not out decision stands because the 3rd umpire relayed everything to Bowden, who subjectively, using the 'normal principles of cricketing certainty' decided that a ball which hit the batsman so far forward is not out. Now my point is that- it is immaterial who makes the decision. The question is- on what basis. And once you're getting technology in, ostensibly to reach the right decision, phrases such as normal principles of cricketing certainty tend to look stupid. That's because you can see (assuming the technology is reliable) whether it is out or not out. To vest discretion in the umpire, on-field or off-field after that, is problematic. I agree with the fact that those which are shown as not out can in limine be given as not out and that's one way in which the benefit of doubt can be preserved. But for those which the hawk-eye shows as out, pitched in line or outside off, hitting in line, and going on to hit the stumps like the Bell decision, I see no logic to it being given not out. The normal principles of cricketing certainty have no place in this because they are premised on the human eye making a call and not hawk eye. So, what do you make of the Ian Bell not out? According to the rules, the not out decision stands because the 3rd umpire relayed everything to Bowden, who subjectively, using the ‘normal principles of cricketing certainty’ decided that a ball which hit the batsman so far forward is not out.
Now my point is that- it is immaterial who makes the decision. The question is- on what basis. And once you’re getting technology in, ostensibly to reach the right decision, phrases such as normal principles of cricketing certainty tend to look stupid. That’s because you can see (assuming the technology is reliable) whether it is out or not out. To vest discretion in the umpire, on-field or off-field after that, is problematic. I agree with the fact that those which are shown as not out can in limine be given as not out and that’s one way in which the benefit of doubt can be preserved. But for those which the hawk-eye shows as out, pitched in line or outside off, hitting in line, and going on to hit the stumps like the Bell decision, I see no logic to it being given not out. The normal principles of cricketing certainty have no place in this because they are premised on the human eye making a call and not hawk eye.

]]> By: Anirudh Krishnan http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sciencetechnology/the-%e2%80%9claw%e2%80%9d-of-udrs#comment-2661 Anirudh Krishnan Wed, 23 Feb 2011 07:54:28 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=2352#comment-2661 Vikas, 1 and 2. Slow mo is very useful in showing whether the ball is likely to hit the stumps. My point is that umpires should first rely on technology and use it as a de minimis test and then use slow mo to make a subjective call. I agree that the on-field umpires are the best people to make this subjective call; however as of today it is impossible for them to get to look at slow mo. A friend (Vinod, while commenting on facebook) observed that the best way would be for the umpires to be able to see what the Third Umpires can see using a Smart phone and then taking the subjective call. This is a great idea; but I am not sure that Smart Phones are reliable enough today for this solution to work. This may be a practical solution 2 years from now. I believe that, as of today, if the on field umpire does have to make the subjective call, he definitely needs to look at slow-mo. One solution may be to have the giant screen show the replay (similar to what happens during Tennis matches) 3. I do realize that there is a view that teams should not make any challenges and that the umpires should refer to technology whenever they have a doubt (like in cases of runouts). This would prevent UDRS from being used as a "strategic tool". However, I am not sure that this is the issue that the Indian team has with UDRS. Moreover, I do not think this is a valid concern as not having a system of challenges will prevent teams from overruling confident yet preposterous umpiring decisions. Vikas,
1 and 2. Slow mo is very useful in showing whether the ball is likely to hit the stumps. My point is that umpires should first rely on technology and use it as a de minimis test and then use slow mo to make a subjective call. I agree that the on-field umpires are the best people to make this subjective call; however as of today it is impossible for them to get to look at slow mo. A friend (Vinod, while commenting on facebook) observed that the best way would be for the umpires to be able to see what the Third Umpires can see using a Smart phone and then taking the subjective call. This is a great idea; but I am not sure that Smart Phones are reliable enough today for this solution to work. This may be a practical solution 2 years from now. I believe that, as of today, if the on field umpire does have to make the subjective call, he definitely needs to look at slow-mo. One solution may be to have the giant screen show the replay (similar to what happens during Tennis matches)
3. I do realize that there is a view that teams should not make any challenges and that the umpires should refer to technology whenever they have a doubt (like in cases of runouts). This would prevent UDRS from being used as a “strategic tool”. However, I am not sure that this is the issue that the Indian team has with UDRS. Moreover, I do not think this is a valid concern as not having a system of challenges will prevent teams from overruling confident yet preposterous umpiring decisions.

]]> By: Vikas NM http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sciencetechnology/the-%e2%80%9claw%e2%80%9d-of-udrs#comment-2651 Vikas NM Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:08:25 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=2352#comment-2651 I beg to differ. 1. Given that the element of subjectivity is inevitable, the person best placed to assess the subjective elements should be allowed to decide. The third umpire is not expected to follow the match every ball (or even if he is, he does so on television - which clearly is not nearly the same as standing 22 yards away from the batsman and noting particular areas of the pitch where there is greater turn or movement that a particular bowler is getting off the seam and through the air etc.). Accordingly, the on field ump is best placed to decide on ANYTHING subjective. The third umpire is required to do the basics - give the umpire on field facts - where the ball hit and what distance away and what its projected motion is. Its not a huge bag of facts! If anything, on the basis of all of this if there is anyone who would ever even consider other variables and choose a result contrary to what technology suggests, it will be the on field umpire. And he is who should be given this responsibility. On de minimis, (unless the ump is bought over), the correct result will be reached even with the current system. 2. On the point of slo-mo I think it is more distraction than helpful for LBW decision (except in finding out whether the ball hit the bat). 3. On the Indian teams unwillingness to use technology - I think it stems largely from the fact that players are used to trusting the subjective element of the umpire and are happy to take the pluses and minuses as they think it ultimately evens out. They do not want UDRS to be used as a strategic tool. I think the piece fails to look at this aspect - which I think is the most crucial in its controversy! I beg to differ.
1. Given that the element of subjectivity is inevitable, the person best placed to assess the subjective elements should be allowed to decide. The third umpire is not expected to follow the match every ball (or even if he is, he does so on television – which clearly is not nearly the same as standing 22 yards away from the batsman and noting particular areas of the pitch where there is greater turn or movement that a particular bowler is getting off the seam and through the air etc.). Accordingly, the on field ump is best placed to decide on ANYTHING subjective.
The third umpire is required to do the basics – give the umpire on field facts – where the ball hit and what distance away and what its projected motion is. Its not a huge bag of facts! If anything, on the basis of all of this if there is anyone who would ever even consider other variables and choose a result contrary to what technology suggests, it will be the on field umpire. And he is who should be given this responsibility. On de minimis, (unless the ump is bought over), the correct result will be reached even with the current system.
2. On the point of slo-mo I think it is more distraction than helpful for LBW decision (except in finding out whether the ball hit the bat).
3. On the Indian teams unwillingness to use technology – I think it stems largely from the fact that players are used to trusting the subjective element of the umpire and are happy to take the pluses and minuses as they think it ultimately evens out. They do not want UDRS to be used as a strategic tool. I think the piece fails to look at this aspect – which I think is the most crucial in its controversy!

]]>