England discovers the folly of depending on UDRS, the technology is unreliable
By fannekhan
@fannekhan (783)
India
February 4, 2012 1:06pm CST
The on going series between England and Pakistan has seen far too many lbw decisions and decisions were because of hawk eye and aided technology.Two decisions today made England feel they were victims of this dubious technology when Pakistan bat Azhar was given not out and hawk eye was to blame and later Stuart Broad was adjudged lbw where no umpire would have given him out but then England and Aus are the two strongest advocates of UDRS and India is the only country which is against the doubtful technology.Srinivasan of BCCI was right when he said the leap of faith was not possible when it came to this technology....
3 responses
@fannekhan (783)
• India
4 Feb 12
For once India has taken a stand and that is irritating the hell out of cricket Australia and England. And the fact is the Indians are being proved right. The technology is not fool proof and so it cannot be adopted, simple as that.
@fannekhan (783)
• India
5 Feb 12
if two bowlers are operating there is no way technology can predict the amount of spin, break or swing that they can generate and with deliberate variations it is impossible for technology to predict these variations and the distances travelled after pitching,technology will fall short. No two balls land on the same spot and it is the individual's capacity and secret choice to extract more bounce than the others and how can technology predict that. whatever advancement one may see in technology it can be used to examine an event after it has occurred to a great degree of accuracy but prediction of bounce, break, swing, pace, line, length is impossible., that is why umpires should always have the final say.lbws are best left to the on field umpire. you can adjudge run outs, 4s and sixes, no balls , wides, maybe even nicks. But no third umpire should be given the power of deciding a lbw decision.
Theon field umpire should run the game with or without errors but leaving it to technology is not on because technology can be totally wrong. you can say the same about some Australian umpires, i suppose, lol.
@roug16671 (12)
• Australia
5 Feb 12
It is a fact of modern life that technology is infiltrating sport. Personally, I think it's a good thing. There is no doubt that in the very near future, technology will be far more accurate than humans. Human error is unavoidable, and no longer needs to be acceptable once the technology is of a high enough standard. The photographic equipment used by the Eagle Eye system in Australia is second to none, and is far better than the old Hawk Eye technology. I think the Indians should be encouraging the technology, rather than causing the game to descend into a series of exaggerated appeals in attempts to pressure the umpire into an incorrect decision that cannot be reversed.
@fannekhan (783)
• India
5 Feb 12
technology should be used only as an aid to the umpire on the field and if the technology is not prefect India is entitled to reject it.the technologists themselves are not prepared to certify it accurate. prediction is not the domain of technology. it is upto the umpire to intrepet footage and come to his own conclusion and sometimes he will not depend on technology , particularly lbw decisions and snicks to a lesser extent.
@grvdubey11 (1879)
• India
13 Feb 12
Totally agree with you.The whole idea behind UDRS is to eliminate howlers which can create controversies ,but more than eliminating howlers UDRS has produced many which is disappointing.Decision of Hughes in Aus SL test,Dravid nicking the ball but hot spot showing nothing,Ponting showing finger to Aleem Darr in Ashes,Ian bell given not out by Billy and third umpire but other umpires giving out on same evidence,Sachin given not out in WC semis when Ajmal was confident that ball would hit the stumps are few examples that UDRS has been a colossal disappointment.
