***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[Borges]

There really aren't that many unforeseen circumstances TBH. It's just a simple problem of plotting the trajectory of a projectile, based on a estimation of its velocity and position. Given that there are enough data points after the ball pitches, it should not be a problem. As I said, its accuracy should be easy enough to prove, and no doubt they would have run several such tests before releasing it.

However, I would assume a lot depends on the accuracy of the cameras gathering said information, where they are placed, how they are calibrated etc. and maybe there should be a way of running a quick spot test on the ground before each match to ensure it's in working order.

Tracking a cricket ball and predicting its path using triangulation with a high degree of accuracy is certainly feasible. However, the accuracy and also the quantum of data gathered are both important parameters; if either one is lacking, the predictions can be way off mark.

As such, the two technology providers have gone in opposite directions. Hawk-eye believes that their use of higher resolution cameras, though with a very low frame rate is adequate - the accuracy compensates for the lack of sample points. Virtual-eye contends that higher number of sample points are far more important, and therefore uses lower resolution cameras, but at twice the frame rate that Hawk-eye uses. Why not use cameras with both higher resolution and higher frame rate? I would suppose that then the cost involved would come into the equation; it may just become unaffordable.

 

[Cevno]

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

The point here being made was regards to its accuracy or whether it is or not, not relating to how the system incorporates it as VCS and me have similar views in that regard ,so only quoted the relevant part.

Will edit the rest and bold it though,if you want.

 

[Bun]

+1



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.

Yep

Tendulkar 1 - RoW 0

 

[Teja.]

But at the same time it is easier for a human to adapt to a unforeseen circumstance that may occur rather than a Software which isn't programmed to do so.

DWTA.

z

 

[GIMH]

The point here being made was regards to its accuracy or whether it is or not, not relating to how the system incorporates it as VCS and me have similar views in that regard ,so only quoted the relevant part.

Will edit the rest and bold it though,if you want.

It's not that, it's just that in the same thread the Brumby quote came from I'm fairly sure he also said he generally did trust HawkEye more than his own eye. It's more a case of accepting it's not 100% more accurate but that it will get more right than the human eye.

 

[GIMH]

BCCI 1 - RoW 0

Hardly. The rest of us will carry on as we were. When we play you lot, we get a slightly ****tier UDRS.

If that's what you class as a victory...

 

[G.I.Joe]

I said why use slow-mos when we could use Hawkeye and then you made some utterly redundant point about how slow-mos are better than the human eye. No **** sherlock. Yet Hawkeye and a fully implemented UDRS is better than both and that's what people should be campaigning for. Not some half assed measure. You're either for UDRS or against it. Not some watered down bull**** compromise.

Calm down, George Bush. Take a deep breath. Whats wrong with you lately?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Tracking a cricket ball and predicting its path using triangulation with a high degree of accuracy is certainly feasible. However, the accuracy and also the quantum of data gathered are both important parameters; if either one is lacking, the predictions can be way off mark.

As such, the two technology providers have gone in opposite directions. Hawk-eye believes that their use of higher resolution cameras, though with a very low frame rate is adequate - the accuracy compensates for the lack of sample points. Virtual-eye contends that higher number of sample points are far more important, and therefore uses lower resolution cameras, but at twice the frame rate that Hawk-eye uses. Why not use cameras with both higher resolution and higher frame rate? I would suppose that then the cost involved would come into the equation; it may just become unaffordable.

What I find most interesting is that the makers of Virtualeye refuse to plot the trajectory of the ball beyond a certain point in its path on the basis that its not accurate to do so. Hawkeye does so. Who's right, and do we know for sure?

 

[Bun]

Hardly. The rest of us will carry on as we were. When we play you lot, we get a slightly ****tier UDRS.

If that's what you class as a victory...

na, we get unadulterated udrs :P free from excess speculation, technology based yes, still speculation.

come on mate, lets now talk real cricket now these wishywashy stuff's sorted.

 

[Bun]

yeah g I joe's point was what sid monga of cricinfo had asked in his artcile yesterday.

the makers themselves can't agree on the predicted path of the ball. but apparently there are more loyal to the kingdom than the king himself.

 

[Cevno]

DWTA.

z

HOW?

Even Artificial intelligence is not that advanced even if Hawkeye had it.

 

[Cevno]

What I find most interesting is that the makers of Virtualeye refuse to plot the trajectory of the ball beyond a certain point in its path on the basis that its not accurate to do so. Hawkeye does so. Who's right, and do we know for sure?

Yeah good point.

This could be where the inaccuracy of the Hawkeye sometimes stems from.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Further independent and expert research will be carried out into the accuracy and reliability of ball-tracking technology

I hope this will help in bringing the Hawk Eye back.

 

[Furball]

Don't know about Tampering tbh and i guess only a expert can tell.

But Hawkeye has many times produced weird bowl tracks specially with regards to spin and bounce.
Like showing a ball bouncing above the stumps on a really really low bouncing Banglaore wicket and showing a Googly off the hand turning conventionally etc..
Then there is the 2.5 metre rule etc...

Have had several arguments about this and the common reply is Hawkeye >>>>> someone watching on TV.
Though,Even the commentators and players have many times been left surprised by the tracks it has shown. Once it showed a ball hitting the stumps when it missed or something like that IIRC.

Really have doubts about it's accuracy still specially in relation to when it is making marginal calls,because technology making clangers can lead to all kinds of nonsense.

The DRS system shares those concerns, which is why marginal calls are left with the onfield umpire.

 

[Furball]

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?

Yes. Because at the time HawkEye couldn't properly track such a delivery as the people building it simply didn't take into account that a player could spin the ball that far. Warne broke HawkEye at the Oval as well.

It's ludicrous to suggest that because of a software error six years ago that HawkEye in 2011 is still flawed.

It's also ludicrous to suggest that because HawkEye got it wrong for one delivery out of countless thousands that will have been bowled and tracked in all the years that the technology has existed that the technology shouldn't be used.

 

[Jacknife]

bcci 1 - row 0

 

[Cevno]

Yes. Because at the time HawkEye couldn't properly track such a delivery as the people building it simply didn't take into account that a player could spin the ball that far. Warne broke HawkEye at the Oval as well.

It's ludicrous to suggest that because of a software error six years ago that HawkEye in 2011 is still flawed.

It's also ludicrous to suggest that because HawkEye got it wrong for one delivery out of countless thousands that will have been bowled and tracked in all the years that the technology has existed that the technology shouldn't be used.

I never suggested it should not be used because of one delivery.

Don't wanna keep repeating the same point again and again IN 2 threads about the same things etc... so would be better if you first read all the posts and then draw any conclusions.

 

[Cevno]

The DRS system shares those concerns, which is why marginal calls are left with the onfield umpire.

Not all are marginal calls are though ,as VCS also pointed out.

Need to first ascertain the parameters and guidelines thoroughly so that it elimnates for error before using it.

For example Virtual eye makers say that to predict paths is not possible fully and don't do it,but Hawkeye ones do it.

 

[NasserFan207]

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.

Why? Why must the bowler always be penalised in favour of the batsmen?

Worst thing about cricket.

On topic, I don't actually care how accurate hawkeye is. It doesn't matter.

What does matter is that we have a fixed, unbiased base from which decisions can be made, as opposed to the human brain.

 

[Prince EWS]

HOW?

Even Artificial intelligence is not that advanced even if Hawkeye had it.

Tracking lbw appeals doesn't really have unforeseen circumstances, though.

Frankly, it's an extremely easy thing to test. Firstly, you get it to track a delivery that went all the through to the keeper or bowled the batsman. Then you take the same delivery and cut the tracking off at a certain point, and put the predictive path technology to work on the ball, as if it had been obstructed by the pad. Finally, you compare the two paths, and see how close they are together. When HawkEye was originally introduced as a visual aid, these tests suggested that ALL HawkEye projected paths were correct to within 2cm, and by the time it was implemented as part of UDRS that margin of error had been reduced to 5mm.

Find me an umpire who can tell you where the ball is going to go within a 5mm radius and I'll show you the best umpire in the history of cricket by a massive margin, and that's what we have in umpire H. Eye.

People need to just shake the general feeling that having technology get one slightly wrong within 5mm once every million decisions is worse than having a human umpire get it wrong by half a foot regularly. And that isn't a slight on the umpires we have by the way - they do a fantastic job given the massively flawed tools they are given. It still dumbfounds me that people can look at a HawkEye track and say "Nah, that's wrong" given the tools at their disposal are far, far less accurate than the tools at HawkEye's. When I see a HawkEye track that counters my initial judgement, and even my ongoing judgement after seeing the replay, I just accept that I'm wrong. Less stubbornness on the part of viewers, players and umpires is what's needed here.

I implore everyone to watch this Mishra delivery example:

Video: Inventor of Hawkeye cricket technology defends its accuracy - Telegraph

Those are the sort of tricks the human eye can play on us. Much bigger than a 5mm margin of error ffs. Even if it was actually ten times that amount...