|
Articles -
Classics
|
Saturday, 30 October 2010 11:17 |
|
Contributed by holdingwilley
|
(6065 views) |
Do you think UDRS is needed?
Jatin: No. Sports can be broadly divided into three elements: Sportsmen, umpires and audience. The reason why most of the sports end up being adorable is for the rawness yet the sincerity that these three elements put in the game. Mistakes and brilliance are glory points of any game. Why give it away to technical tools like UDRS?
Hopping Nelson: Yes. Here’s why. One, it takes the game as close to perfection as possible. Two, more importantly, it prevents individuals from being criticised for their actions by people/experts in the commentary box and living rooms across the world, who take advantage of technological aids to disprove the actions of men (the umpires) on the field without access to it. This is not fair on the Umpires.
Manik: Everybody makes mistakes. It’s human. If Sachin didn’t make any mistakes, 90% of the time he wouldn’t get out! Yet, every time he gets out all of us scrutinize his technique through replay after replay and condemn him for poor technique. So if Umpires make mistakes, especially ones that change the course of a match, it’s only fair that they get criticized for it too. And maybe they can use these tools to learn from their mistakes. But Umpires do bring in an element of luck in the game which I enjoy and wouldn’t do away with. In short, No, UDRS is not needed for all scenarios.
Do you believe UDRS will make the game more boring?
Jatin: Of course. I can't imagine discussing cricket within my friends without having to bash conducts of a few players as well as UMPIRES. Yes, let Bucknor make a wrong decision and let me glorify India-Australia series further and for the future. After all, none of anyone involved here, including Bucknor, were insincere with what they did.
Hopping Nelson: Not at all! Cricket is, anyway, a game of stops and starts. Unlike in other sports like, say, Football, the concept of ‘fluidity’ in cricket is in itself a very fluid concept! In football, repeated breaks in play suck the life out of the ‘beautiful’ game. Cricket is not like that. In fact, on an average, a day’s play of cricket is stopped more than a thousand times as a part of the game, so a few more interruptions is not going make that much of a difference in the quality of the existing cricket experience. In fact, since Cricket lends itself so easily to overs, analysis, expert opinions, discussions and replays, UDRS might well make things more engrossing for viewers by making it possible for them to take an active part in the umpire’s decision via UDRS.
Manik: I think both of you are right here in your own ways. UDRS will not slow down the game any more than it already is. But it will definitely take away a lot of talking points that we fans take from the match and in to the pubs, forums and blogs. It will take away the banters, debates and arguments surrounding contentious decisions and deny us of the ‘ifs’ and the ‘buts’.
Is UDRS 100% effective in eradicating incorrect decisions?
Jatin: No, but it is the closest one gets to a correct decision. So it helps eradicate it at maximum possible levels. But it could rather be used as post match analysis to evaluate the game. Infact, the case against UDRS would be more intense if the system was 100% effective. Umpires would then become mere spectators with special seats and commodity for sponsors to hop onto, just like the stumps and ground space today.
Hopping Nelson: No, but it is the closest one gets to a correct decision.
Manik: Agree with both of you. When the ball hits the stumps you know it, when something comes in the way you are just guessing. Technology cannot predict if the bails will come off or not, like they didn’t in the recent India-Australia series for example. There are grey areas in certain cases but it otherwise gives a fair idea of the possible outcome.
How much faith do you have in the technologies behind UDRS?
Jatin: The technologies used behind it are quiet reliable. Hawk-eye has over the period produced some genuine scientific tools and they should be put to use. But not to replace umpires.
Hopping Nelson: If umpires, players and news reports are to be believed, Hawkeye is not very dependable. Hot-spot however is. (If Sachin Tendulkar approves of it, it must be fine!) All put together, the option of using the available technology is still, I think, better than not using it at all. I have more faith in technology that human goodness or judgement when it comes to this aspect of cricket.
Manik: Hot Spot looks brilliant. In this era of no walkers, it pretty much nails the culprits and can rule out all dodgy bat-pad decisions. But apparently it is way too expensive to implement. Hawk-Eye on the other hand leaves me unsure, especially in the 50-50 cases when the replays tell me it’s clearly missing but Hawk-Eye jumps in to say it’s not. Don’t think it is accurate enough to be used widely.
Why are you for/against UDRS?
Jatin: It is for the rawness of the game. It is for the importance and respect of the Umpires. As it looks now, cricketers 'question' decisions to UDRS. Ridiculous. Umpires give their best and if the amount of concentration they put in is to be considered, I doubt even the playing 22 men live upto it throughout the match. UDRS will kill this spirit and no longer shall one discuss umpires. No longer would one have umpires of the caliber of Bucknor, Bird, Shepperd and Koertzen.
We still values handicraft more than a machine product, don't we?
Hopping Nelson: I am for implementing the Umpires’ Decision Referral System (UDRS) because it takes the Gentleman’s Game one step closer to fairness. It’s unfortunate that the inability of the human race to be completely honest means we need a ‘check and balance’ like UDRS to police the game. That apart, not allowing the umpires to use UDRS is like asking an accountant to do his job without the use of a calculator. What say, Jatin?
Manik: I am in two minds about the UDRS. Technology should be used to make the Umpire’s job easier and help them perform better and not make them redundant. Develop a technology that calls no-balls correctly and I am all for it! It takes one thing off the Umpires’ heads and will help them focus on giving better decisions. Those who talk about fairness, well, what happens to fairness once you lose your UDRS appeals? It is back to square one, isn’t it? UDRS has potential to change the game for good and for bad. I would like to wait and see which course it takes before I hail it or nail it.
!joomlacomment 4.0 Copyright (C) 2009 Compojoom.com . All rights reserved."
|
|
Last Updated on Friday, 13 July 2012 17:20 |
|
This Week's Poll:
Is the entire IPL fixed?
(55 votes)
|
