Friday, July 15, 2011

Big Bully BCCI or maybe not

Best Blog Tips

It appears that the BCCI has effectively browbeaten Sri Lanka and Darryl Harper into supporting it's stance on the DRS. This reminds me of a t-shirt that used to do the rounds when I was a kid. "Eat shit because a zillion flies can't be wrong".

All the worshippers of technology that jumped on the DRS bandwagon must now be puzzled as to why the universal truth that a computer "simulation" is smarter than human judgement is not everyone's version of the truth.

Sri Lanka made BCCI's case about the affordability of the technology. This claim was pooh-poohed by most that thought that the BCCI was an Ostrich. While I am not a huge supporter of BCCI's tactics, it appears in this case the board got bad press for no good reason.

Darryl Harper's substantive and detailed demolition of the case for DRS over umpiring judgement might just get him reinstated into the Elite panel. He probably has made the most compelling rebuttal of the technology bandwagon-wallahs. The 25-50-1800 frames/second difference is simple to understand for anyone with a high school certificate. This science is taught in every secondary (middle) school.

The case that Golandaaz (especially) has tried to make is that the umpire needs to be the final authority. Let him judge the output/recommendation provided by technology and make the final decision. The Decision Review System usurps the umpires authority. In addition, if technology were infallible, then why limit the number of reviews. Giving the umpire the tools and letting him take the time to arrive at the right decision is the way to go.

I didn't respond to Anonymous's comment about my last post. I had trouble with the comments. Our technical staff is working to fix the issue. Meanwhile, here's my riposte.

Anonymous - My friend, you actually made my case for me. By bringing full-strength, half-strength, pitch condition, body-fat etc. into the mix, we muddle a game. This is exactly what I was talking about. A cricket match is played to win and not make mathematical calculations for. The calculations should be made to assist in winning, not to decide whether to win or not.

Also by Opinions...

  1. Wimpy World Champions
  2. Fletcher for stability not rebuild
  3. India is now Dhoni


Vaibhav Sharma said...

India has become the centre of world cricket and is also world champion therefore the other boards and the ICC are willing to be bullied by the BCCI. Cricket is nothing without India

Reverse Swept Radio said...

I understand where you are coming from about the limited number of reviews but I think giving umpires total control creates other problems.

Say an umpire gives an lbw not out. It turns out later that had he gone to the technology, the player would have been dismissed. Said umpire will face a torrent of criticism.

Umpires, aware of the criticism that they are likely to face, may well have to cover themselves by relying on technology constantly.

Golandaaz said...


What's wrong in using technology constantly. Underwriters in banks constantly use technology to make decisions on loan applications, doctors constantly use technology to diagnose problems...

Why are only umpires singled out and made to compete with technology.

Its like a doctor is first asked to make a diagnosis manually without technology and then when the patient says I think I need a second opinion, the lab technician orders some tests and overrules the doctor. And the hospital says, Dr. X's record is 1 misdiagnosis in every 3 cases.

If something's good, use it all the time? Why is DRS rationed. One reason is time but then the onus should be on the technology to deliver images and sound to umpires instantly for each and very decision.

For some short term gains of getting a few decisions right, cricket had completely eroded the umpire's authority by the nonsensical referral mechanism