***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[Cevno]

Should really use it for that atleast without the predictive thing ,or use a simple pitch map even.

 

[Spark]

I don't understand why we even need Hawkeye to determine those things like pitched in line, hit in line etc. Surely a simple frame-by-frame replay with a standard stump-to-stump overlay would suffice - hopefully that will actually be the way it happens in practice and people are just being a bit tunnel-visioned.

 

[silentstriker]

Hopefully.

 

[Cevno]

Yeah ,good point.

A normal pitch map would suffice probably for everything other than the 51% ball pitching inside or 54% ball hitting the pads outside off thing.
Which in any case there is no certaintly Hawkeye is fully accurate enough for and can be left to the umpires.

 

[Spark]

Well if it's 51% pitching then I guess the whole point is that those decisions are lineball and shouldn't be overturned anyway. UDRS+H had an Umpire's Call status for pitching in line too.

 

[vcs]

Wasn't the whole controversy about Simon Taufel giving Sachin out LBW in England last time based on a Hawkeye projection which showed the ball missing the stumps?

 

[Bun]

I don't understand why we even need Hawkeye to determine those things like pitched in line, hit in line etc. Surely a simple frame-by-frame replay with a standard stump-to-stump overlay would suffice - hopefully that will actually be the way it happens in practice and people are just being a bit tunnel-visioned.

Exactly...

 

[Cevno]

Think 54% pitching in line was considered to be overturned under the UDRS + Hawkeye system.

 

[Cevno]

Wasn't the whole controversy about Simon Taufel giving Sachin out LBW in England last time based on a Hawkeye projection which showed the ball missing the stumps?

It hit him miles offside off stump and even a real time replay let alone a slow motion would have sufficed for that.

Besides didn't Shane Warne beat the Hawkeye system in 2005 ,where the ball was shown missing the stumps when the bails were in fact lying comfortably on the ground ,with regards to the dismissal of Andrew strauss?

 

[vcs]

Think 54% pitching in line was considered to be overturned under the UDRS + Hawkeye system.

My one grouse with UDRS + Hawkeye is that when the ball is shown to be fractionally pitching/hitting in line, or fractionally hitting the stumps in the Hawkeye predictor, batsman should be given the benefit of doubt regardless of the original decision. I wouldn't want a batsman to be hanged on that evidence, but I'm OK with a bowler being denied a wicket in those cases.

 

[Bun]

BCCI 1 - RoW 0

 

[Spark]

It hit him miles offside off stump and even a real time replay let alone a slow motion would have sufficed for that.

Besides didn't Shane Warne beat the Hawkeye system in 2005 ,where the ball was shown missing the stumps when the bails were in fact lying comfortably on the ground ,with regards to the dismissal of Andrew strauss?

That was 6 years ago so obviously the technology would have improved significantly since. It's also worth noting it's not every day a ball goes at what seems like right angles after pitching...

 

[Cevno]

My one grouse with UDRS + Hawkeye is that when the ball is shown to be fractionally pitching/hitting in line, or fractionally hitting the stumps in the Hawkeye predictor, batsman should be given the benefit of doubt regardless of the original decision. I wouldn't want a batsman to be hanged on that evidence, but I'm OK with a bowler being denied a wicket in those cases.

Are you a Batsman yourself?

That is pretty much my grouss as well(though i don't agree about your verdict),as i don't think Hawkeye can be relied upon to make marginal calls as it's accuracy is still in question for me and the makers accept it to a certain extent too.
So until the parameters to remove that margin in terms of implementation of Hawkeye is ascertained ,i am fine with not using it.

So what were you debating with me about in the other thread?

 

[centurymaker]

My one grouse with UDRS + Hawkeye is that when the ball is shown to be fractionally pitching/hitting in line, or fractionally hitting the stumps in the Hawkeye predictor, batsman should be given the benefit of doubt regardless of the original decision. I wouldn't want a batsman to be hanged on that evidence, but I'm OK with a bowler being denied a wicket in those cases.

nah, I'm for anything that is in favour of the bowlers
batsman have it far too easy nowadays

 

[vcs]

Are you a Batsman yourself?

Not a very good one.

That is pretty much my grouss as well(though i don't agree about your verdict),as i don't think Hawkeye can be relied upon to make marginal calls as it's accuracy is still in question for me and the makers accept it to a certain extent too.
So until the parameters to remove that margin in terms of implementation of Hawkeye is ascertained ,i am fine with not using it.

So what were you debating with me about in the other thread?

Haha, I think the technology's accuracy itself shouldn't be in much doubt, at least not in the cases you cited such as doosra, spin, inconsistent bounce etc. which I think are pretty irrelevant if the cameras have collected enough data after the ball has pitched.

Also, the Warne incident was in 2005 and at that time, the technology was in its inception stage IIRC (it was only being shown by the tennis broadcasters for entertainment purposes) and it was eventually adopted in tennis a couple of years after that. Maybe they would have improved it since then and ironed out any glitches. I think the officially stated margin of error in Hawkeye is 0.3 mm. In tennis matches you see line calls overturned on a margin of a hair's width. Not saying I'm comfortable with those, but at least it's consistent.

In cricket, it's a bit more tricky because you have to make an extrapolation from the point of impact onwards, hence why I think those marginal ones should stay in favour of the batsman.

Extensive testing, making the process transparent to the users, and releasing as much data as possible is the only way to make the system satisfactory to every one.

 

[vcs]

nah, I'm for anything that is in favour of the bowlers
batsman have it far too easy nowadays

DWTA, the basic nature of the game (i.e. it takes only one good ball/bad shot for a batsman to get out) remains the same.

 

[Bun]

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

No...

 

[GotSpin]

So funny seeing Bun staunchly defend the BCCI as if any criticism directed towards the organisation can be interpreted as an attack on Indians

 

[Borges]

I don't understand why we even need Hawkeye to determine those things like pitched in line, hit in line etc. Surely a simple frame-by-frame replay with a standard stump-to-stump overlay would suffice - hopefully that will actually be the way it happens in practice and people are just being a bit tunnel-visioned.

+1

BCCI 1 - RoW 0

Not really; it is a clear compromise.

Apparently there was no other way forward as BCCI (Tendulkar) was adamant on hot-spot good, hawk-eye bad. And the RoW did not have the balls to back their convictions and just outvote India.

 

[GIMH]

Thanks for the detailed rebuttal Bun

And Cevno, that's fairly selective quoting RE Brumby, quite dishonest actually