***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[Cevno]

Uppercut ,are you a scientist/Engineer/Software developer etc...?

Btw, every point in that post has been made before tbh and countered etc...

 

[Uppercut]

Some people don't know when to stop talking.

 

[Cevno]

This thread is going round in cirlces for a while in any case.

The fact as it stands is that Hawkeye has been made optional for the time being and until it proves itself fully it will remain that way or if it is proven not to be accurate enough then even that status can go.

People are on either side of the debate and everyone varies on their opinion on the parameters that should be in place to counter marginal decisions(increased or decreased) ,and on the accuracy of the technology , on whether it can be tampered with ,where does VIrtual eye stand etc......

All are pretty specific and detailed issues and not as simple as some make it out and going round and round in circles about it when the decision has been taken is a bit too pointless.
I for one only don't want the Hawkeye for the marginal LBW decisions and i think VCS and others agree on that too,while differing on whether it is accurate or not. Then it comes down to the semantics of what is a marginal decision etc... and this debate can go on and on that too,so ultimately there is no end.

 

[GotSpin]

Lol so bad...

 

[Cevno]

Some people don't know when to stop talking.

Yeah,would be better if people went through the thread before making repeated points.

 

[Cevno]

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?

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


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

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”



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



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.




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

Some interesting points there ,which discredit the 5mm theory and the makers seem to agree too. Hmmm........

 

[Uppercut]

The debate isn't "going round in circles", it's over. You lost. It's entirely up to you whether you accept Cribb's definitive summary or stubbornly cling to your predetermined belief in your ability to one-up missile-tracking technology by looking at events on a 2d TV screen. It makes no difference to any of us.

 

[Cevno]

The debate isn't "going round in circles", it's over. You lost. It's entirely up to you whether you accept Cribb's definitive summary or stubbornly cling to your predetermined belief in your ability to one-up missile-tracking technology by looking at events on a 2d TV screen. It makes no difference to any of us.

If you are gonna start looking at that way the debate got over when the ICC agreed with what some people are advocating here and made the ball tracking system not mandatory.

Even though i won't mind it being used for non Marginal calls.
It doesn't really matter what people on here say either way.

And if you care to look all those points have been countered before and again by Bun in this instance with new information too.
You can though cling on to your rigid perception if you want too,because you are entitled too.
Though even the makers agree to a margin or error.

 

[GIMH]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, I missed it yesterday. But I just read on cricinfo that they aren't using snicko for UDRS.

While Hot Spot is the only infrared, thermal-imaging camera available in cricket, audio tracking referred to the high quality "clean and real time" replays from the stump microphones, and not the Snicko, an ICC official confirmed.

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

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, Uppercut is such a ****ing geezer.

Seriously, thread closed. EWS nailed this one.

 

[Cevno]

Yeah,read that yesterday.

Apparently Snicko takes too much time to load. So they are using high quality stump microphones whatever that means.

 

[Daemon]

Wicket keepers to keep making clicking sounds when standing up to the stumps

 

[Cevno]

They can do that with Snicko too tbh. Would have to time it pretty well in either case and do a wooden sound.

 

[Bun]

Some people don't know when to stop talking.

The debate isn't "going round in circles", it's over. You lost. It's entirely up to you whether you accept Cribb's definitive summary or stubbornly cling to your predetermined belief in your ability to one-up missile-tracking technology by looking at events on a 2d TV screen. It makes no difference to any of us.

So dire.

Yeah, Uppercut is such a ****ing geezer.

Seriously, thread closed. EWS nailed this one.

Prince made a lot of interesting points. But some of these were based on erroneous premises as well. He admittedly enhanced and "moderated" the discussion nicely into a channel. FFS, it made me sit and look up the ****ing HawKEye website for an hour!

 

[Bun]

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.

Nah I am just accounting for SRT.

Seriously, world isn't everything white and black. UDRS, overall good thing, but some aspects of it need refinement. There cannot be a "my way or the highway" approach here.

 

[Howe_zat]

FFS, it made me sit and look up the ****ing HawKEye website for an hour!

Heaven forbid you actually take a look at the information you're adamantly discussing.

Says it all really.

 

[Daemon]

yyyeah it was an attempted joke.

 

[Bun]

Heaven forbid you actually take a look at the information you're adamantly discussing.

Says it all really.

 

[G.I.Joe]

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?

I'm seriously interested in an answer by someone who actually knows about this stuff.

 

[Howe_zat]

I don't know much about the VirtualEye version, but I suspect that it's to do with how many cameras they have or where they are, thus reducing the input information and making VE inaccurate past a certain point. If Hawkeye are confident that their system lacks this problem, then they must have more input information.