***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[Jarquis]

Hawkeye is a part of the complete UDRS system though. Why use something half assed such as slow-mos when there's a better system that can be implemented? Boggles the mind.

 

[Cevno]

Hawkeye is a part of the complete UDRS system though. Why use something half assed such as slow-mos when there's a better system that can be implemented? Boggles the mind.

Hot spot and Snicko are being used plus Slow motions.
Hawkeye's only really for marginal LBW decisions(showing tracks),so not really a major part.

Have really explained my position it in the other thread ,so don't wanna repeat it again here tbh.
Wouldn't mind hawkeye and pitch map being used for relatively clear decisions either once a margin of error for the Hawkeye is put into the system to deal with the dodgy tracks it can show.

 

[Daemon]

A decision about how the cost of using the DRS technology would be divided will be taken later. Last week, BCCI vice-president Niranjan Shah had said that the cost of using the DRS was as high as $60,000 per match. According to the ICC, however, that figure is close to $5000 per day, with a maximum of $25,000 being spent on DRS per Test.

/thread

 

[Cevno]

BCCI now saying that it only opposed the Hawk eye from the start.
And the rest of the boards agreed to not make it mandatory as there are serious doubts about it.

Also Hawkeye can now be used in billateral series depending on what the home board decides in consultation with the touring board.
So basically it will be used in most series except India ,i guess.

 

[Daemon]

Hawkeye is a part of the complete UDRS system though. Why use something half assed such as slow-mos when there's a better system that can be implemented? Boggles the mind.

Why use something half assed as on field umpires when there's a better system (slow mo) that can be implemented? Boggles the mind.

Anyways, no point talking about it now because of this vvv

Agreement on DRS after Hot Spot is made mandatory | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[biased indian]

CEC, which also approved the Cricket Committee's recommendation to reduce the number of unsuccessful reviews in ODIs from two to one

 

[Jarquis]

Why use something half assed as on field umpires when there's a better system (slow mo) that can be implemented? Boggles the mind.

Yeah, let's replace a bad system with a moderately less worse one even though there's a fantastic alternative. Genius!

 

[GIMH]

India's decision to use UDRS minus hawkeye adding weight to the Swann-fear theory tbh

 

[biased indian]

What happened to the minnows qualifying for the 2015 WC thing.. I thought they were supposed to discuss that as well in the ICC meeting.. IMHO a much more important issue than the UDRS debate (please don't take offense GIMH ).

ICC Cricket World Cup 2015

The CEC recommended that there should be a qualification process for the ICC Cricket World Cup 2015 but did not make a recommendation to the ICC Executive Board on the number of teams that should compete in the event to be held in Australia and New Zealand.

 

[Cevno]

^^^^^
Why reduce the number of reviews? 2 was fine as it is.

There are several occasions where one has to review as it seems out but it actually is not. And not having review when there is a wrong decision will only increase frustration among players if anything.

Have to say the Cricket Committee made some Bizarre recommendations.

 

[GIMH]

As long as they keep it at 2 in Tests I don't mind too much. Didn't seem to be many instances of sides having no reviews left in the WC.

 

[Cevno]

Yeah, let's replace a bad system with a moderately less worse one even though there's a fantastic alternative. Genius!

Many seem to disagree on Hawkeye being a "Fantastic Alternative " ,imo.

And you are giving it too much importance in any case.
It does not make that much a difference that the system without it is not "moderately less worse" and with it Fantastic.

The UDRS being implemented without it even and with Hotspot,Slow motion and Snickometer largely sorts most decisions,if done properly.

 

[Daemon]

Yeah, let's replace a bad system with a moderately less worse one even though there's a fantastic alternative. Genius!

ffs dude, stop putting words in my mouth. I've already told you before, I wanted the slow motion as a temporary solution until the whole UDRS **** was sorted out. You conveniently ignored the part where I said this debate was redundant when I posted that link as well.

edit: don't mix me up with Cevno btw, we have different stances and arguments about the UDRS

 

[GIMH]

Many seem to disagree on Hawkeye being a "Fantastic Alternative " ,imo.

And you are giving it too much importance in any case.
It does not make that much a difference that the system without it is not "moderately less worse" and with it Fantastic.

The UDRS being implemented without it even and with Hotspot,Slow motion and Snickometer largely sorts most decisions,if done properly.

I'd say Hawkeye is the most important element. LBWs are the ones a human is most likely to get wrong, surely.

 

[vcs]

It should be so easy to prove/disprove the accuracy of Hawkeye (the predictive aspect). Like others have pointed out, run 1000 balls from a bowling machine in real-life conditions (you can vary the state of the pitch to include inconsistent bounce, cracks etc.) and see whether Hawkeye's predictions match the ball's actual path. I suspect it will be pretty good, what with being originally developed for military purposes, and all.

Eventually I think it is inevitable that the BCCI will come around to the idea.

 

[GIMH]

I'm pretty sure it will have already been tested like that tbf.

 

[Cevno]

I'd say Hawkeye is the most important element. LBWs are the ones a human is most likely to get wrong, surely.

Not Really.

There are plenty of decisions like in the recent test against West Indies which the umpires can get wrong. In fact i think all of the wrong decisions were non LBW's.
The other technologies can deal with it and sort that out.

After that coming to LBW's ,The inside edges have no role for the hawkeye to play so that sorts it out.
Then whether it pitched in line or hit in line can be largely sorted by the pitch map if it is clear enough. Or if it is a real howler simply by slow motion replay.

Even after that we can trust the umpires to get most decisions right. But if they don't get the whatever 1/2% of the 8% left-

Wouldn't mind hawkeye and pitch map being used for relatively clear decisions either once a margin of error for the Hawkeye is put into the system to deal with the dodgy tracks it can show.

But beyond the relatively clear decision, i have doubts about accuracy of the Hawkeye as i have explained several times before, even before today when it became clear it was the ICC boards and BCCI's stand too(or what they are claiming atleast).

Don't really trust the Hawkeye enough with the 51% hitting the stumps or clipping the bails or not type decisions as it has shown before that it can show some real weird paths as BoyBrumby said we can't agree with according to human comprehension ,no matter what the technology experts say.
And would rather go with the judgement of the umpires who know the pitch and are out there with those decisions .

 

[vcs]

Why can't we have the "x% of the ball hitting the stumps, where x < 75" type decisions as "benefit of doubt going to the batsman", instead of "on-field call stands"? Same applies to LBW calls where just about 51% of the ball pitches in line with the stumps and the rest outside legstump, or the ball hitting the batsman just in line with the stumps.

 

[biased indian]

would have been nice to restrict it to 2 for the game ...rather than 1 for each inngs

 

[Cevno]

It should be so easy to prove/disprove the accuracy of Hawkeye (the predictive aspect). Like others have pointed out, run 1000 balls from a bowling machine in real-life conditions (you can vary the state of the pitch to include inconsistent bounce, cracks etc.) and see whether Hawkeye's predictions match the ball's actual path. I suspect it will be pretty good, what with being originally developed for military purposes, and all.

Eventually I think it is inevitable that the BCCI will come around to the idea.

How does that deal with the ball hitting the pads and rubbing across it though before moving ahead or hitting the pads on a half volley or really close to pitching from the pitch?etc...


And how will the test results show much about how it will perform when dealing with the actual batsman as they will have to take a fixed point of impact in that test which can vary when dealing with a batsman like 2.4 metre outside crease or 1/2 a metre inside crease. Or hitting 5 cm after pitching or hitting 57 cm after pitching.
Also about the Doosra ,how would that test deal with the amount of spin or drift?

Generally the Hawkeye seems to have also a problem of showing higher bounce on really low bouncing wickets.