Sharda Ugra reported on Cricinfo that Sachin Tendulkar has nothing against DRS, but thinks that consistency is the key, and that DRS would be more effective if combined with Snickometer and Hawkeye. Today she quotes the CEO of Virtual Eye, Ian Taylor as agreeing with Tendulkar.
Virtual Eye and Hawkeye used different types of cameras in their ball-tracking. Virtual Eye Cameras have a higher framerate but lower resolution, while Hawkeye cameras have a lower framerate (about half of Virtual Eye) and better resolution. This is because the Hawkeye people believe (and claim they are supported by scholarship in this) that being able to locate the ball with high accuracy (which a higher resolution makes possible) is more important than getting a higher number of data points (which a higher framerate makes possible).
So ball-tracking has problems. The two major vendors of ball-tracking technology do not agree about the accuracy of their respective methodologies, and the ICC has not tried to get independent scrutiny of the matter.
But leave that aside. Ms. Ugra's reporting and article reeks of the classic problem in investigations. People often answer only the questions that they are asked. So here is the central question that Sachin Tendulkar needs to be asked. His answer to this question (and BCCI's answer to the same question) will fundamentally change the debate.
What does Sachin Tendulkar think about the Player Review? Does he think it is a good idea for a player to be given the opportunity to ask for a review, with no new information being made available to him before he decides whether or not to ask for one (beyond what the non-striker can tell him)?
This is the crux of the problem. It is the core issue in DRS. The technology is problematic, but is still usable if handled by experts (Umpires) with sufficient discretion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment