We are all for technology. But not for technology for technology's sake. Unlike MS Dhoni, we do not believe technology should be 100% fool proof before it is deployed. Unlike Sachin Tendulkar we do not claim to understand the reliability of Hot Spot over Snickometer. We don't really understand the cost issues around adopting UDRS, so we can't say whether the BCCI is justified in its relentless opposition to using UDRS.
What we do know is that the process of delivering decisions using technology is flawed. Make the UDRS a tool of the on-field umpire not a tool for the players to challenge his authority.
So the recent announcement that UDRS will not be deployed for the title clash in South Africa, should make us happy. Not really, because its completely missing the point and unlikely to influence that case of our concern.
3 comments:
I agree wholeheartedly with this point. Make the UDRS available for the umpires to use it at any time they think they have a doubt.
I really don't understand the logic of player referral. Sometimes even howlers are being referred and that's just a pure waste of the system. Close calls are where we're trying to eliminate the error and its better if the umpires determine whether it is a close call or not, just like they do for a runout.
I have problems with how the UDRS is implemented. Asking the batsman to make a challenge is ludicrous considering he has to be paying attention to the ball and the bowler and the field and match situation. Let the umpire do his job.
Or, more precisely, initiate the reviews from the 3rd ump for ALL iffy decisions. It only needs him to pay more attention to the TV, as the system is set up now, than just wait for the "square" signal from the field umps.
its like if your car get hit by errant driver the traffic police instead of taking or promising action against that errant driver instructs you... "abe kaha tha na insurance karwane ka tha..."
Post a Comment