Ricky Ponting and Umpires

Discussion in 'The Ashes 2010-11' started by Insomniac, Nov 29, 2010.

  1. Biggy Panel of Selectors

    Biggy
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    I was listening to the ABC today at work and the commentators there, I think Aggers and Peter Roebuck said that Dhoni's reasoning behind not using it is was (and he said), 'If I was going to drive a bullet-proof car I would want the whole think to be bullet-proof, not just parts of it'.:lol:lol
     
  2. angryangy ICC Chairman

    angryangy
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2004
    Always remember the original UDRS when you complain about it now. This is a changing system we speak of. To speak of what it does now is not to indicate that it can't and never will be done better. I think the UDRS is now well equipped to handle LBW, but clearly some of the other aspects have yet to evolve.

    The main advantage for lbws is that Hawkeye and Hotspot both help a great deal. Hawkeye gives you the trajectory and Hotspot is very good for distinguishing multiple points of contact. Above all else, both work quickly. Snicko is good for identifying sounds, but it usually takes two overs, which makes it only any good for feats of indignation.

    Ideally, edges and catches should benefit from a few correlating pieces of evidence as well. I mean, if we're just going to have a stab in the dark, we might as well trust the standing umpire. Perhaps a future version of Hawkeye will provide accurate trajectories for the ball after the bat. Perhaps there will be something else entirely. All I can say is that the current system is a lottery which depends greatly on how the third umpire feels (which I guess must please diehard fans of the so-called "human element").

    I've got no problem with Taylor having a whinge about what does and doesn't work because he's a part of the ICC Cricket Committee. As long as people in such positions of power are passionate about improving the game, they will eventually find the right solutions. It's when those people decide that 'near enough is good enough' that they will allow small problems to get increasingly worse.
     
  3. Sureshot Executive member

    Sureshot
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2005
    National Team:
    England
    Domestic Team:
    Sussex CCC
    Location:
    England
    I don't think the system is implemented very well, the technology there is pretty good. Hawkeye does detect the very small edges, it just doesn't produce the clear white marks the commentators expect, I could see a lighter mark on the bat with the Bell dismissal.

    The problem is, common sense, now, you'll always get anomallies, because even with technology advanced way beyond what we can detect, it's still being controlled by humans. Why didn't the third umpire say, "I can't see any mark, but there is a definitive sound and the bat isn't close to hitting anything else."

    I really felt for Dar, he made a good decision and for some reason the system failed. That reason is the ICC. They have completely failed to standardise UDRS, the costs of the system are down to the broadcaster! It's an umpire aid for crying out loud. There's also a significant lack of training on how the system should be used and dealt with. It's not as though it's a brand new system being trialled, it's been around for 14 months now, that's a lot of feedback they should be analysing and reviewing.

    Of course it will get better, but it should be getting quicker than it is.

    As an avid cricket watcher and someone who has umpired, I'm all for the system, but it has one big problem. The ICC.
     

Share This Page