India are at it again!

[ManWithNoName]

LOL, you know I'm right.

When Haddin and the bowler appeal, they are doing so to mount pressure on the batsman. Every team does this.

When the whole Indian team appeals they are doing so to get a wicket out of nothing. Which is why they don't want the tech.

Truth. /discussion.

Possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read.

 

[Spook]

Pitched outside off, batsman was offering a shot. Pretty simple really. Not out.

You should be banned from this board.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

​

Possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Have to agree with you there.

The thing is, the missed Indian wickets probably wouldn't have been given even with DRS. On the Hussey LBW they barely appealed, so they wouldn't have referred it.

Secondly (and probably one of the big reasons behind India not wanting the system), history so far has shown that India do not use DRS well. At the risk of stereotyping, they tend to be the type that doesn't accept decisions going against them - they are always robbed, it's never a case that they were beaten by a good ball or appealed for something that actually wasn't out.

Consequently, had DRS been in India would have probably wasted their two referrals on frivolous appeals within about the first three overs of the innings and couldn't have referred those later ones anyway.

If you have a look at their referral history in series where DRS has been in place for them, the above is not far off the mark. That's why they don't want it - they don't use it well, and their continued failure in referrals just feeds their perception that the system is somehow cheating them.

 

[Keys]

Have to agree with you there.

The thing is, the missed Indian wickets probably wouldn't have been given even with DRS. On the Hussey LBW they barely appealed, so they wouldn't have referred it.

Secondly (and probably one of the big reasons behind India not wanting the system), history so far has shown that India do not use DRS well. At the risk of stereotyping, they tend to be the type that doesn't accept decisions going against them - they are always robbed, it's never a case that they were beaten by a good ball or appealed for something that actually wasn't out.

Consequently, had DRS been in India would have probably wasted their two referrals on frivolous appeals within about the first three overs of the innings and couldn't have referred those later ones anyway.

If you have a look at their referral history in series where DRS has been in place for them, the above is not far off the mark. That's why they don't want it - they don't use it well, and their continued failure in referrals just feeds their perception that the system is somehow cheating them.

Amongst all the hoo-ha over the drs issue during this test, this post makes the most sense

 

[Spook]

The Only DRS we need is Aleem Dar. I beleive he was reviwed 30 odd times beofre he was proven wrong. The problem with this test was Shocking Umpiring.

We will have of the best 3 umps for the 3rd and 4th Test so we wont see these same issues. Yes there may be some very close calls but that was the case for 120 years.

 

[damochandler]

​

Have to agree with you there.

The thing is, the missed Indian wickets probably wouldn't have been given even with DRS. On the Hussey LBW they barely appealed, so they wouldn't have referred it.

Secondly (and probably one of the big reasons behind India not wanting the system), history so far has shown that India do not use DRS well. At the risk of stereotyping, they tend to be the type that doesn't accept decisions going against them - they are always robbed, it's never a case that they were beaten by a good ball or appealed for something that actually wasn't out.

Consequently, had DRS been in India would have probably wasted their two referrals on frivolous appeals within about the first three overs of the innings and couldn't have referred those later ones anyway.

If you have a look at their referral history in series where DRS has been in place for them, the above is not far off the mark. That's why they don't want it - they don't use it well, and their continued failure in referrals just feeds their perception that the system is somehow cheating them.

Probably one of those hussey non wickets that should have been. They would have only appealed full on once

 

[Underarm]

Yeah in the end they probably ended up worse off than us. Haddin was out on the first day, Hussey plenty of times today. Shocking umpiring.

We certainly complain more when the umpire doesnt give the right decision, but then australians are now completly use to and accepting of the drs system......The bad calls look even worse at the moment....

 

[frankrizzo]

There really is no logical argument against drs, the only arguments seem to be emotional ones with little to back it up.

Fact is there were many obvious mistakes made in this test that technology could have made right in 30 seconds, we have umpires under fire from day 1 who are more likely to make more mistakes as the game goes on thanks to the mental toll those uncorrected early mistakes take on them.

The BCCI have immense power in the game but they seem to be ignoring the immense responsibility that comes with it.

 

[evdo1706]

The CEO of Virtual-Eye himself came out and pretty much vindicated BCCI's opposition of DRS in the current form. The way DRS is being operated right now is nothing but a big joke. You just cannot justify ICC's decision of allowing DRS to be run by the broadcaster, who btw isn't even contractually obligated to do so in most countries. What's more, they can even tamper the result with ease without any umpire knowing a sh!t about it. Neither ICC nor the umpires have got a clue how it actually works. Everyone(basically the gang led by Tony Greig, who btw has been against anything India since BCCI stopped ICL and the other one led by Nasser Hussain) who's been telling you on TV that it's the best thing since sliced bread has vested interest in doing so. Do read it with an open unprejudiced mind....
------------------------------
"I don't know of any other sporting organisation that would actually hand over the results of a Test, first to a TV company, or secondly to a company that a TV company hires,"

"The technology has a part to play, but it really needs to be mandated and controlled by the ICC, right down to the people who operate it. You can change the results. Everybody says you can't do it,but you can. "

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/548069.html
--------------------------------

Another very sane article I read a few days back,

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/playing-with-controversy-20111230-1pfk6.html

 

[Slax]

I can understand why the BCCI don't want it, but I do think it could still be used for LBW referrals possibly especially if it a question of where it hit the batsman and where it pitched, these can't be altered.

 

[evdo1706]

I can understand why the BCCI don't want it, but I do think it could still be used for LBW referrals possibly especially if it a question of where it hit the batsman and where it pitched, these can't be altered.

Personally what I don't want to see in cricket is absolute howlers, like the one in which Hussey got out in the first innings of the Melbourne test or a LBW decision with a big inside edge. I can live with close decisions going either way(like Ed Cowan caught behind in Melbourne or many LBWs against Hussey which weren't given) and can trust the on field umpire on those.

To remove howlers you just need TV replays. The TV umpire should have more power, if he sees any mistake which is conclusive from TV replays, give him the power to overrule it. Most blunders will be corrected that way.