***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[Agent Nationaux]

I disagree, DRS should be made compulsory for every cricket match.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I disagree, DRS should be made compulsory for every cricket match.

This.

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

Well OK, my bad...what I meant to say was that it is time to use DRS sans the gadgets until they are proven to be of better quality than they are now.

DRS as such moves the game forward but the gadgets are the problem

 

[OMM!]

So if Sachin Tendulkar is on 99* and he's given out LBW, and it still looks out on Replay, you won't get upset if Hawkeye, a minute later, then shows it missing by 2 or 3 inches?

 

[MW1304]

Sooo many DRS threads.

 

[four_or_six]

I was thinking maybe we just ought to have an 'official' one...

 

[keeper]

So if Sachin Tendulkar is on 99*

Do you mean in one innings? Or career average?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Tendulkar was also out in the wc semi against Pak

 

[sumantra]

...and use simple, plain replays to overturn obvious howlers?

I think there are many points in favor of the above -
a. DRS with all its gadgets has shown to be inaccurate
b. It looks awful when the different gadgets used don't agree with each other
c. Too many procedural requirements means it converts what should be a straight forward case into a complex enactment
d. Procedures used in the implementation themselves are pretty arbitrary and stupid
e. Does not allow umpires the benefit of replays and provides players the advantage of many gadgets (albeit useless ones) to challenge the umpire
f. Rolled throughput yield of the decision making process in fact reduces the accuracy of decision making when DRS is used.

ps: for all the talk of bcci's hegemony, money power, etc, etc, they seemed to have done their own 'learning' inconspicuously behind the scenes

agreed on what u said about BCCI 100%...hats off...
can u say a bit more about some of those points that u have mentioned...mostly D and F? curious...to know more
do u see it as not being conclusive enough at this point of time?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Television cameras have been shown to produce incorrect pixel data, particularly in darker conditions. What we need to do is ban all TV coverage and cover cricket by using a series of carrier pigeons for ball-by-ball updates.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Television cameras have been shown to produce incorrect pixel data, particularly in darker conditions. What we need to do is ban all TV coverage and cover cricket by using a series of carrier pigeons for ball-by-ball updates.

Henry Blofeld would have constant hard on if pigeons were used.

 

[BlazeDragon]

I was thinking maybe we just ought to have an 'official' one...

Why don't you?

 

[Top_Cat]

...and use simple, plain replays to overturn obvious howlers?

Because if that was adequate in the first place, there would have been no need for URDS. Replays were tried and as imperfect as some aspects of the URDS are, the errors leap through the roof if you try to eyeball even a HD screen. Quick calculation assuming the camera is 120m away from the pitch and 20m above the ground means you're looking at the pitch from a 10 degree down-angle. There will be parallax error especially when it comes to LBW's.

Hawkeye may not be perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than the naked eye viewing an angled camera.

 

[Migara]

It's time to ditch the cricket boards and egoistic players who shout out to ditch DRS.

And oh, the posters as well.

 

[Cevno]

'Tracking mistake' on Hughes lbw

Hawk-Eye's custodians have admitted the depiction of Phil Hughes' second-innings lbw dismissal in the Galle Test was rendered inaccurate by "a tracking mistake".

The visible discrepancy between Hawk-Eye's graphic and television replays led to the incident being referred to the ICC by the officiating umpires, under the governing body's conventions for the assessment of decisions made under the DRS.

Steve Carter, the managing director of Hawk-Eye Innovations, said the mistake had been the result of several factors, one of which was the fact the ball had travelled less than 40cm between pitching and striking Hughes' pad. Under Hawk-Eye's configuration for the Sri Lanka series, ball-tracking cannot be deemed conclusive if the distance between pitching and impact is less than 40cm.

"Yes, we made a tracking mistake, and the Hawk-Eye track didn't deviate enough off the wicket. We informed the ICC immediately after the game to make them aware that this was the case," Carter told ESPNcricinfo. "Despite the small distance from pitching to interception, and other mitigating circumstances that have been explained to the ICC, we should have done better. Lessons have been learnt from this instance and the probability of it happening again in the future is greatly reduced.

"Our track record as part of DRS is very good. This is our first error in a long time, and the ability of Hawk-Eye to reliably provide accurate and definitive decisions compares very favourably with other technologies and replay angles that are used to assist the umpire in different parts of the DRS protocol."

Hughes was given out lbw on the second evening when he attempted to sweep Tillakaratne Dilshan. Replays indicated that the delivery had spun appreciably from around middle stump towards off, but Hawk-Eye's prediction had the ball going straight on with the angle from round the wicket to strike leg stump. The decision was upheld not because of the errant Hawk-Eye tracking, but because the third umpire Tony Hill found insufficient evidence to reverse Richard Kettleborough's original call.

Carter said previous queries about Hawk-Eye's accuracy in the circumstances of the Hughes dismissal had led to the addition of a graphic to indicate that the point of impact was less than 40cm away from the point of pitching, meaning the onus for the decision would return to the on-field umpire's judgement. This graphic was not in place for Hughes' dismissal, however.

"There was less than 40cm of travel between the pitching point and the interception point," Carter said. "This has been an issue that has been raised in the past, and led to the implementation of the 40cm graphic. We are currently under instruction that the 40cm graphic shouldn't be displayed in the circumstances of the lbw appeal in question."

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Sri Lanka v Australia, 1st Test, Galle: Umpires ask ICC to look in to Hughes' dismissal | Cricket News | Sri Lanka v Australia | ESPN Cricinfo

Hawkeye better than everybody and can be trusted blindly based on what the makers say.Yeah Right.:

Pointed out that when the ball pitches close to the pads, the Hawkeye can be really dodgy a long while ago.

 

[Cevno]

As errors pile up, ICC to discuss DRS again

NEW DELHI: With the ICC issuing a statement saying that the effectiveness of the Decision Review System (DRS) would be further debated following some controversial dismissals, the BCCI has reason to feel vindicated.

The Indian board's adamant opposition to the DRS hadn't gone down too well with either the ICC or other member boards, but the move to review the technology follows controversy over the system's use in the India-England Tests and also in the ongoing Sri Lanka-Oz series.

The last straw was leading international umpire Simon Taufel's move to refer Australian player Phil Hughes' second-innings dismissal during the Galle Test to the ICC. Taufel, along with the officiating umpires, sent footage of the incident to the ICC as a "serious question mark against the accuracy of Hawk-Eye".

Taufel said the ICC needed to test the accuracy of devices such as Hawk-Eye, HotSpot and Virtual Eye through "independent testing" outside the purview of broadcasters and technology suppliers, which seems to have finally woken up the ICC.

Incidentally, BCCI officials had been repeatedly saying the same thing since India first used the referral system in 2008. The board reluctantly agreed to embrace technology like Hotspot before the England tour, while putting its foot down on the use of Hawk-Eye. That led to the current India-England series being played without the ball-tracker. In England, though, it emerged that even Hotspot was inconsistent.

The ICC statement, meanwhile, while acknowledging that the technology used needed looking into, argued that the number of correct decisions had gone up after the use of DRS. The statement said ICC would "continue to monitor the accuracy of ball-tracking and all decisions whether referred or not under the Decision Review System (DRS)", and reaffirmed that "every decision made in Test match and ODI cricket is monitored at the ICC headquarters in Dubai".

ICC general manager (cricket) Dave Richardson said in the statement that "such monitoring revealed a minute number of errors in technology and that technology is not always conclusive".

Unlike in the India-England series, Hawk-Eye is being used in the Tests between Sri Lanka and the Aussies. In one particular instance, Hawk-Eye even showed the ball going the wrong way.

As errors pile up, ICC to discuss DRS again - Times Of India

Absolutely shocking that before this not only did the ICC not get it tested by a Independent analyst before use despite protestations by the BCCI even.

It seems as if they are just so desperate to use it without comprehensive testing that they are just accepting whatever terms the technology holders are putting on the table. After a certain limit the ICC officials cannot even keep check and monitoring on how the technology is being implemented by the broadcasters and the owners of the technology as per the terms of the agreement the owners are willing to offer.

 

[Bun]

use hawkye only for showing actual impact. do away with the predictive path altogether. use the mat and slow mo camera to weed out obvious errors like pitching outside leg, inside edges etc.

in this age of technology, pls make available the feed in the on field umpire's hands like a tablet or something, so that the umpire can himself review the decision rather than placing trust on the words of a second person.

and lol at blind lovers of udrs. cevno 2 > hawkye devotees 0.

 

[marc71178]

So Hawkeye (with it's self-confessed lack of accuracy over distances of less than 40cm) is being criticised for not having accuracy over a distance of less than 40cm. What next, Bears criticised for ****ting in the woods?

 

[Top_Cat]

That article is atrocious. India 'reluctantly agreed' to use HotSpot? Please. HotSpot was the deal-breaker.

The whole line from the article is a non sequitur. Independent testing would be nice and the implementation of the tech being consistent would be great but even with the (fairly minimal, in my opinion) issues that have made themselves apparent, having URDS has still resulted in more accurate calls for outs and not-outs than not having it at all.

The problem with demanding testing before implementation is that, by the time someone gets off their arses and tests the current incarnation of the system, the technology moves so fast the new system will be available. So then that will be need to be tested and by the time that happens....etc., etc. Thing is, the system will get better/more accurate as the camera technology improves and the software gets refined; as it is, there have already been a bunch of features added to it which are independent of the ball-tracking part (Hawkeye, if anything, could be accused of scope-creep). The BCCI seems to disagree with that but aren't providing an evidentiary basis for it other than "It's not 100% accurate!" yet the one part they went for is probably the most error-prone.

Their argument lacks a sophisticated base and it's a shame the ICC can't just vote over it, in my view.

 

[Cevno]

That article is atrocious. India 'reluctantly agreed' to use HotSpot? Please. HotSpot was the deal-breaker.

`
Where do you get that from?

Because the ECB Chairman way back during the SA tour more than a year and a half back said that the system was absolutely useless without Hotspot .

Every single board agreed to the hotspot and nobody objected from all the reports. The article becomes atrocious when it doesn't suit the convenient line?