***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[GIMH]

[/thread]

 

[Jarquis]

Prince EWS ftw.

 

[silentstriker]

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?

Clearly the technology is useless if it got one delivery out of thousands wrong because umpires never get one decision out of thousands wrong.

 

[Cruxdude]

IMO, if BCCI did not believe in the predictive part of Hawk-eye, they should have been forced to have it until the point of contact.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

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

Because the human umpires only make decisions on things that have actually happened.

technology > human eye


/broken record

 

[vcs]

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.

Because you know it's the right thing to do. Like I said, the fundamental nature of the game hasn't changed (at least in Test cricket). I'm OK with having it the other way around in the limited overs formats.

 

[Jacknife]

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...

awta.

 

[Bun]

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.

No dear, Hawk Eye says about that thus:

• Pitching point accuracy under 5mm (in MCC tests it was shown to be 2.6mm)
• · Interception point accuracy under 5mm (in MCC tests it was shown to be 2.6mm)

·
Prediction of where the ball passes the stumps:

• In all “normal” LBW instances under 15mm and average error of 5mm
• In “extreme” LBW instances under 25mm

An “extreme” LBW is one where there is less than 40cm of travel between pitching
point and interception point and the batsman is hit over 2 meters from the stumps.
The current protocol has a 45mm umpire call “margin”

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.

It's impossible to measure that without an element of bias or subjectivity, I'll go for the Dar.

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.

Perception Prince, perception. Just because they use all these new tech gizmos and cameras and sophisticated technology etc etc, we tend to perceive them as more "accurate".

But HE itself claims that it cannot really be correct to even 5 mm beyond a point, and requires to fall back on the same despised thing called the human eye. As an investor I'd be hesitant to put my money on something which apparently improves slightly on something which I know can be controlled without it (non extreme lbw cases) by appointing a set of good umpires, but comes a cropper when it comes to extreme lbw cases. I'd rather eliminate massive howlers like inside edge, with help of additional tools like the snicko and hot spot, and leave tracking the predicted path of the delivery to the human brain.

Hawk Eye's competitor firm, Virtual Eye specifically remarked upon this point as well. It admitted it's best to use their tracking software to assess where it pitched and the point of impact.

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...

Unfortunately my browser can't play that video (curiously it can play Youtube) so I cannot comment on this.

 

[Bun]

Adding to this: the Hawk eye website also states the following:

Is the Hawk-Eye system fully automatic?

3 Hawk-Eye staff are required to operate the Hawk-Eye system. Their roles include:
1. Lining up and calibrating the cameras
2. Measuring the pitch and the stumps which do vary from ground to ground
3. 1 member of staff is responsible for the virtual reality graphics and offers LBW replays and all the other Hawk-Eye features to the TV director.
4. The other 2 members of staff both are responsible for the tracking. They work independently of each other to provide redundancy, but are able to see a comparison of the two tracks. If they are different for any reason, they can be pro-active in working out why rather than being re-active after a LBW appeal.

On a ball by ball basis they would do the following:
a. hit a button to tell the system that a ball has been bowled and trigger the tracking
b. manually fine tune the point on the trajectory where interception with the batsman was made. Automatically the system is only able to determine the interception point to the nearest frame of Hawk-Eye video running at 106 frames per second. This can be improved manually and is the only way to ensure that the interception point is accurate to 5mm.
c. Tune settings to account for varying light conditions
d. Tune settings to deal with camera wobble

I am a bit worried about point (b). Does it say it still requires significant manual intervention achieve the claimed levels of accuracy?

 

[Bun]

How does the accuracy of the prediction degrade the further is has to predict?

So long as there is enough data available out of the bounce, the prediction accuracy degrades very slowly the further it has to predict, as is shown in the examples below. The main reason for the “over 2.5 meters” element of the protocol is because it fits more naturally with the way the game has been played. If a batsman comes down the wicket, but doesn’t get to the pitch of the ball and pads up, he would typically not be given out LBW, and this element of the protocol ensures that this continues to be the case.

Really?

So it basically says it has to fall back on generally accepted umpiring principles whenever it cannot work, and looks like a signficant part of that falls in the "grey" area where umpires themselves aren't really sure. So basically HawkEye is saying, it can get decisions right which otherwise a competent umpire too can get spot on?

 

[Prince EWS]

Really?

So it basically says it has to fall back on generally accepted umpiring principles whenever it cannot work, and looks like a signficant part of that falls in the "grey" area where umpires themselves aren't really sure. So basically HawkEye is saying, it can get decisions right which otherwise a competent umpire too can get spot on?

No, you completely mis-interpreted that. What it's saying there is that the 2.5m rule existed not because of a limitations in technology, but because of generally accepted practices that actually contravened the rules in a way. Batsmen aren't usually given out by the umpire when they're that far down the wicket, so even though HawkEye is quite competent in predicting from that distance, they elected not to as to avoid changing the entire nature of the game.

The 2.5m rule was basically designed to keep the traditionalists somewhat happy and stay consistent with what is generally accepted (despite and not because of the laws of the game). Their goal is to overturn decisions that the cricket world would've considered wrong rather than to change the way he game was actually played and the perceptions of what is and isn't out. Personally I think to the hell with that sort of thinking; if they're out under the laws of the game and evidence shows it on the balance of probabilities, then they should be on their way. But they don't agree, that's why it's there, and that's what what you quoted is saying.

 

[Daemon]

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.

wtf. Why can't you campaign for the UDRS while using the slow-mo at the same time?

You're agreeing with me that slow-mos are better than the human eye, and yet you're saying we shouldn't use it as a TEMPORARY measure? It'll take like 2 seconds to put it in place and everyone can use it immediately in series where the UDRS is not already in place.

You're either for UDRS or against it.

I'd also like to remind you for the third ****ing time that I've always wanted the fully implemented UDRS in place but if the BCCI don't, then while debates for that goes on this was a perfectly fine solution for the time being. You're essentially arguing that nothing is better than something.

And now that India has to use the UDRS (albeit without Hawkeye), I don't really see the need for slow-mos, although imo they can still be used with the pitch map to tell whether the ball pitched outside legstump or hit the pads outside off. which is something batsmen using the handicapped UDRS can't review as of yet.

 

[Blaze 18]

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.

Some would argue that it's fair as a batsman only gets one chance. A bowler can always come back and pick up wickets - even if the batsman gets a reprieve, the bowler has the opportunity to bounce back. It's different with batsmen. If they are wrongly given out, that's the end for them. Not that I necessarily agree with the reasoning, but I believe that's the logic behind benefit-of-the-doubt-always-goes-to-the-batsman .

 

[Bun]

No, you completely mis-interpreted that. What it's saying there is that the 2.5m rule existed not because of a limitations in technology, but because of generally accepted practices that actually contravened the rules in a way. Batsmen aren't usually given out by the umpire when they're that far down the wicket, so even though HawkEye is quite competent in predicting from that distance, they elected not to as to avoid changing the entire nature of the game.

The 2.5m rule was basically designed to keep the traditionalists somewhat happy and stay consistent with what is generally accepted (despite and not because of the laws of the game).[/B] Their goal is to overturn decisions that the cricket world would've considered wrong rather than to change the way he game was actually played and the perceptions of what is and isn't out. Personally I think to the hell with that sort of thinking; if they're out under the laws of the game and evidence shows it on the balance of probabilities, then they should be on their way. But they don't agree, that's why it's there, and that's what what you quoted is saying.

Cricinfo disagrees with you on the bolded line. Below is the quote from an article it published:

The 2.5m clause was included in the DRS rules following the expert view that the predictive path of the ball-tracker technology (in this case Hawk Eye) lost its accuracy when the distance between the point of impact and the stumps was greater than 2.5m.

World Cup 2011: ICC tweaks 2.5 metre DRS rule for 'consistency' | Cricket News | ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 | ESPN Cricinfo

I want technology to give me concrete and significant value addition. And I want it to justify fully the extra cost that goes into it. If it cannot properly justify the additional costs, I might as well stick with the existing structure.

At the moment, it is kind of playing safe, it claims to give super accurate results on something which I know good umpires are capable of providing as well. (Predictive path on non extreme lbws)

When it comes to extreme cases, where the umpire himself is not sure, I would've liked Hawk Eye to step in for the rescue. Unfortunately as it turns out, Hawk Eye isn't sure bout it's own accuracy in such cases. Hence it has decided to play safe and go by "umpire's call".

I am still not at all sold by HE's claims of its predictive path technology adding enough value to be compulsorily made a part of UDRS. I have no problems against it being used either, with the caveat that it's predictive path technology not be used in the decision making process.

If HE and VE can refine their systems with respect to the issues with their tracking technology, and bring it down to an acceptable threshold (5 mm looks good to me, regardless of distance between pitching and impact etc), then I don't mind it being used as part of UDRS.

 

[MW1304]

I honestly don't think there would be an argument here if MS and the BCCI were for the DRS. It seems like some people are now searching for some sort of cracks in the Hawkeye system that aren't there, just to account for their board. I don't understand why you can't just accept that they are being unreasonable - there is a reason why every single other board wants the DRS.

 

[Furball]

They need to clarify, and fast, what can and.cannot be reviewed when it.comes to lbw shouts.

Was watching the YouTube clip of Wasim owning Dravid and it would be a nonsense if the lbw shout Wasim had turned.down wasn't able to be reviewed without HawkEye.

 

[Cevno]

This post isn't relevant to what you quoted firstly.

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.

This exact same point had been made by VCS and i responded to it before ,so really do not want to do it again.Also gave some examples of what exceptional circumstances that can occur in a previous post.

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.

Every umpire can claim to be accurate withing a 5mm radius like the hawkeye though.
Obviously the makers of Virtual eye disagree with it as they say it is not right to predict a path.

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.

It's not the viewers only but the commentators and players too.

Even the makers of Hawkeye agree that it is not 100% foolproof and there has been evidence of it in some tracks it has shown too ,no matter what the scientist or the makers themselves say.

What is wrong with wanting the marginal decisions staying with the human comprehension rather than some software which is pretty much reliant on guesswork at some point.
All i am saying is that we need ascertain that what parameters need to be put in place to counter the inaccuracies of hawkeye.
The 54% of ball hitting the stumps or clipping the stumps type decisons are better of leaving with the umpire.

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..

The makers of virtual eye insist that predicting paths is not correct beyond a certain point and the makers of Hawkeye do it . Asking for accurate INDEPENDENT proof of it is not a crime.
If in fact that can be proven for all circumstances which as i have said before i am not fully convinced of.

Also there is a fear of tampering with the Hawkeye cameras because they are only licensed and beyond certain checks ,the callibration and placement and output is all handled by the makers and broadcasters.
This has been a major obejection and nobody can say for certain unless they are involved with the process.
I can't claim to know anything about it ,but this aspect certainly needs to be reviewed properly and if they are being too rigid with the licensing agreement then they can **** off and we can use other alternatives which may not do predictive paths but will atleast be clearer till the point of impact.
We are at best talking about 1 or 2 % "Marginal LBW decisions here from the 8%,remember.

 

[Cevno]

I honestly don't think there would be an argument here if MS and the BCCI were for the DRS. It seems like some people are now searching for some sort of cracks in the Hawkeye system that aren't there, just to account for their board. I don't understand why you can't just accept that they are being unreasonable - there is a reason why every single other board wants the DRS.

BCCI's objection to the Hawkeye only really became clear yesterday and i have been making this point for months (Over a year probably ) now.
Have had several arguments about the weird paths that Hawkeye can show on here when the incident happens too many times. And there have been many others that have agreed on Hawkeye being weird at times too ,with respect to specific instances.

I have been insisting from the start that the BCCI is being stupid with not implementing UDRS ,but have mantained that i don't trust the Hawkeye fully specially for Marginal decsions and commentators and players have also agreed and looked surprised in different instances.

 

[GotSpin]

I honestly don't think there would be an argument here if MS and the BCCI were for the DRS. It seems like some people are now searching for some sort of cracks in the Hawkeye system that aren't there, just to account for their board. I don't understand why you can't just accept that they are being unreasonable - there is a reason why every single other board wants the DRS.

 

[Uppercut]

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...

The site should just automatically redirect to this post every time someone tries to crack that hawkeye's made a blooper.