India and Sachin are right to hate the flawed democracy of UDRS

There are many flaws with the UDRS.

Snicko can’t be used because it takes too long and is easily cheated with. The whole thing costs people money and no one wants to pay for it. It takes too long. The weapons systems need to be set up manually which they often are incorrectly. Hot spot can be cheated. Sachin is against it. Simon Katich and Daryl Harper both are often involved.

All that said, it is here and now. We can all do barroom pontification on why democracy is a majorly flawed system of governance, but with an army of millions of the world’s poor and the backing of Ashton Kutcher and Stephen Fry on twitter there is little we can do to change it.

UDRS is like democracy.

And in this world cup we don’t even have a strong democracy, but a half a democracy with severeal of our rights not even being used.

Still, on the face of it fewer mistakes are made, wrongs are righted, and we all go home just not sad enough that we want to upset the world balance.

Then Ian Bell gets hit 2.5 metres away from the stumps. Apparently missiles can’t travel for the last 2.5 metres, so Billy trusts his original mistake.

Bell walked after seeing the video, other batsmen have been given out because of the 2.5 metre clause, and the only reason not to do it was because Billy doesn’t like to be wrong, even though you’d think he’d be used to it by now.

That this all happened against India, who have all but banned this democracy because their supreme ruler doesn’t like it, makes it even more important.

Now I’ve been on all sides of UDRS in the past. I like that it stops bad decisions, but I hate that it stops the drama and constant complaining of a truly shocking decision.

It was brought in to stop the shockers, but it spends most of its time trying to work out shades of grey, and it’s as open to interpretation as anything on the field, it just takes longer.

I like mistakes, hate it when things take time, and need to suck up to Sachin to get more hits, so I say no to UDRS.

It’s evil, boring, often wrong and doesn’t make the game better.

I want the shockers back, I want them to be instantaneous and I want the might of the Sachin Tendulkar Internet Militia to get on my side.

Anyone for the UDRS is basically questioning the sexuality and batting prowess of Sachin Tendulkar.

UDRS is as flawed as democracy and way more unnecessary. Plus it’s crap, Sachin told us so.

Yes to Sachin, No to UDRS.

Watch the Chuck Fleetwood-Smiths

Advertisements
Tagged , , ,

21 thoughts on “India and Sachin are right to hate the flawed democracy of UDRS

  1. golandaaz says:

    Its quite the contrary. India’s opposition to UDRS has united the rest of the world in support of it.

    Sachin’s and the BCCI’s arguments against UDRS are unfathomable to me.

    But its like the ICC are fumbling because they feel they are being watched by elder brother BCCI who the ICC fear will at any moment say…”see i told you so….”

    This UDRS howler will pass. Essentially it was a match no one wanted to win.

  2. Homer says:

    The process at arriving at decision making is flawed. And there are no benchmarks or standards for technologies in play. What is basically a visual tool used for entertainment ( and as a medium to educate the viewer) is taken in its current form and used as the final arbiter in any decision.

    Also, this World CUp is using the full complement of tools deemed mandatory by the ICC for the UDRS.

    Unless the ICC can get its head out of its arse and address these issues and others raised by people more learned than I, Viva Sachin Down Down UDRS!

    Cheers,

  3. RK says:

    STIM is now officially on JRod’s side. With our blessings, may you become wealthy with a billion page views every day.

  4. Prasanna says:

    May the militia be with you Jarrod. Here is the first missile from the militia http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/cricket-world-cup-2011/news/India-vs-England-Bell-survives-close-shout-decision-criticised-by-experts/articleshow/7588049.cms

    Love your blog!!! Please keep up the great work!!

  5. yenjvoy says:

    He is not supreme ruler. Sachin is God. Big difference.

  6. Max says:

    Jrod, a factual correction….Sachin has for long been in favour of HotSpot as a part of UDRS…it is HawkEye that he has doubts about (as per past articles on SMH and Cricinfo).

    But UDRS is here to stay…no man or demi-god can hold it back for long! (although stupid rules like the 2.5M limit even for spinners, and interpretation by umps like Billy and Harper can jeopardize its longevity!)

    PS: Look for tall batsmen like Pietersen to exploit this 2.5M rule…they may never be ruled out LBW!

  7. Sachin is 37. UDRS is not even 2 years Old. 37-1.5 = 36.5. 36.5x more power to pwn anyone. But Billy is 47 and Harper is 59. So, 106. 106-36.5 = 69.5. BUT 69.5 is too sexy and erotic and need of Antibiotic if Microflora of down there(down there) goes in to Up there (Mouth) If done with multiple ppl. So, we must convert Kids are watching Cricket. So, we must convert 69.5 –> 96.5. However, number of International century Sachin hit is 98. So 98-96.5 = 2.5x MORE power to Sachin. AND that number Cost India a match. Bloody 2.5.

    So, I urge Sachin to Please score one more 100 just to prove that. You were right all along.

    Thank You Sachin.

  8. I just come up with all this in 10 minutes as I was typing. I think I am starting to believe that I have problem now.

  9. kap says:

    one way or the other india will always get fucked by the umpires/icc/white media. and they deserves it, the uppity darkie cunts.

  10. Wonder what it would be like if Sachin was in place of Bell? The same crackerjack comments or UDRS being the next best thing after Scarlett Johansson boobies?

  11. IronMonkey says:

    We of the Sachin Tendulkar Internet Militia take umbrage to the fact that you have the word “Sehwag” at a more prominent place on your website than the word “Sachin”. This is heresy, and our lawyers will contact you momentarily.

    That said, we can overlook your past sins if you convert to Sachinism from your heathen religion. You must dress only in the blue of the Indian cricket team, must speak only in cliches, and when cliches fail you, you must go out with the bat and hit a back-foot punch down the ground.

    May Sachin be with you.

  12. Don’t expect India to embrace UDRS anytime soon….if i am not mistaken, they must be the only team to never have successful UDRS reviews in their short history of using it…

  13. Basil says:

    bullshit.

    you want one howlingly bad decision for a laugh, sure, but a second in a game would be a farce and bloody annoying. the system’s generally good but needs refinement. here: expected bounce on pitches varies, at the very least by continent. so refine the 2.5m rule. eg, 3m in India, 0.5m in Perth.

  14. ppl still don’t want to listen do they?

    It’s not mainly about who and what country have to say about UDRS. Try to ignore that Sachin and India are against it. Think of it like Afridi and Pakistan are against it or Punter and Australia are against it. It doesn’t make difference.

    Try to solve issues, then pointing fingers, because we can’t wait for each and every team to suffer from UDRS + Billy + Harper blunders and then agree with someone.

    Just think logically, Spinner (Yuvi) bowled short ball which Bell made it into good length trying play premeditated leg glance. And it hit him below Knee roll. Now, last time I checked Yuvi is not Morne Morkel. Hawkeye shows it hit him middle of the stump, Bell saw that on big screen, and ofcourse it was clearly out Bell thinks and started to walk, because it’s obvious that ball is not going to fly above the stump dunking all physics laws.

    BUT FUDRS has rules of 2.5 –> which evades logic. And it finally came down to Billy’s Decision.

    So, what’s difference here. We eventually had to Bow against Bowden with UDRS or without UDRS. How did FUDRS help anyone here?

  15. yenjvoy says:

    O Sachin, Hallowed by thy name. Thy runs come, thy batting done, in Perth as it is in Brabourne. Give us today our daily hundred, and forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who are not Indian. And lead us not into attempting dilscoops, but deliver us from slashing on the off side. Amen.

  16. jogesh99 says:

    Technology is for wimps. it never solves anything, it only creates newer problems.
    Morons who believe its infallible will continuously be shocked and appalled – they will never get it.

    Billy is inept – but he wasn’t wrong not to overturn – exactly what was he told by the third umpire – that it was hitting middle and that he was a blind fuck – i doubt it.

    India is against udrs/urds/surd/whatever because the lankans were smarter than them when they first used it – so they cant handle that. Anyway, its used completely cynically by most teams, so why gripe when one call goes against you.

    Why dont all the worshippers of technology just bow down and accept its decisions – you have already suspended most human judgement – so whats the big deal here about 2.5 frikkin meters, its not the limit of hawkeye accuracy, it just the artificial limit of your fuckin’ self- delusion. Make your insensate lives simpler – just accept hawkeye no matter what – just fucking redefine out and not-out to be what hawkeye says – its better than bucknor and billy at any rate – and keep them on to count balls and for comic relief..

  17. jogesh99 says:

    Watch the pak-canada game, so many dubious decisions – and UDRS saves the day. Now could the ICC be doing this on purpose, i wonder – decision fixing! You heard it first here.

  18. jogesh99 says:

    Check the asymmetry in the out-review and the not-out review. Await the next controversy from the techno-worshippers:

    From
    http://static.icc-cricket.yahoo.net/ugc/documents/DOC_39EFCA4C7A2F335D543EF937F162F837_1257924398353_687.pdf

    iii With regard to determining whether the ball was likely to have hit the stumps:
    Appendix 5
    Page 6 of 8
    – If a ‘not out’ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the ball is hitting the
    stumps, the evidence provided by technology should show that the centre of the
    ball would have hit the stumps within an area demarcated by a line drawn below
    the lower edge of the bails and down the middle of the outer stumps.
    However, in instances where the evidence shows that the ball would have hit the
    stumps within the demarcated area as set out above but that the point of impact is
    greater than 250 cm from the stumps, the third umpire shall notify the on-field
    umpire of:
    a) The distance from the wickets to the point of impact with the batsman
    b) The approximate distance from point of pitching to point of impact
    c) Where the ball is predicted to hit the stumps.
    In such a case, the on-field umpire shall have regard to the normal cricketing
    principles concerning the level of certainty in making his decision as to whether to
    change his decision.

    – If an ‘out’ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the ball is missing the
    stumps, the evidence of the technology should show that no part of the ball would
    have made contact with any part of the stumps or bails.
    j) The on-field umpire must then make his decision based on those factual questions that were
    answered by the third umpire, any other factual information offered by the third umpire and
    his recollection and opinion of the original incident.
    k) The on-field umpire will reverse his decision if the nature of the supplementary information
    received from the third umpire leads him to conclude that his original decision was
    incorrect

  19. Basil says:

    ” so whats the big deal here about 2.5 frikkin meters, its not the limit of hawkeye accuracy, it just the artificial limit of your fuckin’ self- delusion. ”

    This is about the implementation of the technology and not the technology itself.

    As for the asymmetry, that reflects the position that the URDS is to prevent howling mistakes, rather than overrule umpires.

    I like the use of technology. It is a safety net that prevents bogans from being incensed via the big screen scoreboard.

  20. jogesh99 says:

    Basil,
    Meaning what? its the technology – it claims to lose accuracy after 2.5 m. Well, so does the umpire.
    Firstly, eliminate the nonsense of asking for a review – automatically review every decision and overrule if neccessary. Simple. Disconnect the ump and the 3rd ump – ump gives decision, 3rd ump reviews and gives the final verdict. This back-and-forth is a farce.

    > I like the use of technology. It is a safety net that prevents bogans from being incensed via the big screen scoreboard

    So its the technology (the big-screen) thats causing the problem in the first place – nice.

  21. jogesh99 says:

    Behind the UDRS

    Its not about accuracy, predictablity, or consistency, its about being convinced.
    Firstly, nobody knows what would have happened in an lbw, no test can “scientifically” tell you whether hawkeye is more accurate or the umpire is, because the ball never does hit the stumps.

    Hawkeye was “tested” by comparing its decision with the original umpiring decision for 1000s of lbws using tv recordings of past matches. It claimed to show 96% (or whatever) accuracy. Meaning what? – that 96% of the time, it agreed with the umpires decision.

    If I was a sentient worshipper of techno, that would actually be sufficient evidence for me to accept the umpires verdict – period!

    But no, exactly the opposite happens – the techno worshippers feel that this testing is “evidence” that hawkeye is more likely to be right than the ump – why! Its just an opinion – there is no proof. If you worship techno, you will blindly believe it, you are CONVINCED – thats all. To further buttress your belief, you will create complicated rules like the 2.5 m rule, to pretend that you still have control, when you have actually willingly (or in most cases, unknowingly) relinquished all human judgement.

Comments are closed.