throughout the series there were actually more lbw decisions that would have been over-turned by UDRS that went against england than went against india tbh

india had alot of marginal decisions that went against them but most of those would have stood with the on field umpires decision if they had been reviewable

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

wow someone really got out of the wrong side of bed today

did the thrashig you got hurt that bad neon that you are still bitter and twisted enough to be making comments like that ?

Are the ICC going to make all aspects of UDRS compulsory?
If not, they should.

they got to either make the full thing mandatory or scrap it altogether imo

having this silly situation where what aspects of it can be used changes from series to series is a farce imo

If was good to see some decisions go against India which will teach them another lesson. If all the other nations want it and are happy with it then the ICC should give India no choice but implement it.

And these sightless Indian fans, they seem to support their cricket board for this idiotic stand that it has taken, despite of watching so many decisions gone marginally against them this series.

Infact I remember in one of the decisions raina did gesture for the use of udrs.

For me the ICC have themselves to blame in the UDRS rules for the predicted element.

They have added doubt in how accurate it is - in the following.

The 2.5m rule. In saying if the ball pitches more than that, then we can't trust the accuracy of UDRS so we will let the off field umpires decide on what to do.

The rule, if the umpire gives a decision 'not out' and only a certain amount of the ball is hitting the stump the decision of the umpire stands (not out) but if the umpire gives a decision 'out' and only a small amount of the ball is hitting the stump then he is given out. Again it tells me how much confidence do you have with this technology?

I also feel that if you are going to make countries use some or all the DRS than the ICC should pay the TV companies for it not the home country, this maybe why sky go on and on about technology being used (and other sports). Already in some series the home country have refused to pay, so tech. of any kind wasn't used. How is this problem going to be solved in future series? Can a TV co. charge any amount knowing you have pay because of the ICC rules?

thats not quite right tbh

the 2.5m rule is purely there to give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman , in the same way an umpire will do so anyway

if a decision is reviewed and the 2.5m is exceeded then the 3rd umpire will discuss this with the onfield umpire and between them they will agree whether the lbw was "plumb enough" for them to ignore the 2.5m impact or not

i think everyone knows hawkeye is not 100% accurate and all the 2.5m rule does is prompt the umpires to apply a benefit of the doubt, it is not a hard and fast factor in any decision

if hawkeye suggests the ball is hitting half way up middle stump but the impact was more than 2.5m , the umpires can just ignore the 2.5m altogether if they want

"The rule, if the umpire gives a decision 'not out' and only a certain amount of the ball is hitting the stump the decision of the umpire stands (not out) but if the umpire gives a decision 'out' and only a small amount of the ball is hitting the stump then he is given out. Again it tells me how much confidence do you have with this technology?"

We forget that the UDRS is in place to remove complete shockers, not to overturn marginal calls.

Why don't we just have a robot standing there with a built in hot spot camera in his head and wired up to sniko and wireless fed hawkeye into his processer?

Ok on a seriour note, we need the third umpire to watch for front foot "no-balls", I have umpired in quite a few games and it in not easy to look down and imediately focus on the batsman, especially when a bowler start to bowl 140+ (87 mph+)

i have had enough of that idiot neon. i have given him far more time than was reasonable for him to have proper debate.

filtered.

I'm not in favour of filtering but strangely yesterday I was sorely tempted to filter you Topdawg.

what for best?

Singh-Saab, As you say UDRS for LBW's is there to correct shockers. I'm just looking at it from a players point of view, how frustrating it must be to have tech. but we will not rely on that as it depends on what the umpire gave. This must create doubt in how accrurate do people in cricket think this is. I still think it's better if tech. is only used on factual yes or no decisions. ie. where the ball pitched, did it hit the pad outside of leg stump, decide run outs/stumpings for if any part of the bat/foot is over the line and even though hotspot isn't 100% correct I would like to think it is 99.9% if it shows that something did hit the bat and the only problem with it is not showing something hitting it if something did.

Is LBW the only decision in any sport where tech. is used to predict something?

i cant think of another one , they do use a predictive strike zone on TV in baseball but thats purely for the TV it isn't used in the game, baseball is very much against using video replays and only use it for very limited situations

i cant really think of any other sports where the umpires/referees are required to predict decisions either tho