***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[GotSpin]

Personally I think it has shown up the fact that the viewers only complain when given evidence and if not, would have made the exact same decision the umpire did. But hey, some people just can't digest that a whinging opportunity has been taken away.

Wtf. How can people complain about a decision when we aren't allowed to properly review the decision ourselves?

 

[honestbharani]

Do you mean the most recent one, LBW to Sammy?

Also, no-one is assuming that the technology is 100% correct. That's why the evidence has to be well past borderline to overturn the umpire's decision (more than half a ball hitting rule etc etc). The only thing which shows something that never happened is the Hawk-eye predicted path, up till then all it's showing is damn near exactly the ball's flight path, and as anyone with a basic grounding in physics and curved projectile paths will tell you, it's safe to assume that the final 2 metres (at furthest) of a ball's path won't be significantly different to the first 18.

Well, the fact that hawkeye got the predictive path wrong so many times shows that up, doesn't it? And the other part is, as much hardwork as the guys at hawkeye do (and I am not denying their hardwork for even one second here), it is not about 18 meters at all. Cricket balls behave a significantly different way after pitching (swing/seam/spin) and therefore, with a full ball, you end up predicting the same distance you have evidence for, after it has pitched.


Look, I am not saying hawkeye is completely wrong. But if and when there are reservations, just don't use it just because it can help you have the umpires look like morons.

 

[honestbharani]

Wtf. How can people complain about a decision when we aren't allowed to properly review the decision ourselves?

Well, when you are not sure of the subject being taught and whether it is factually correct, I would think that is the best course of action.

 

[marc71178]

Nope.. Take an example of the Yuvraj dismissal. Without the predictive path tracking, no one has raised the issue in the tour thread yet. And yet, had there been that replay, a number of posts would have immediately gone in, outlining exactly why DRS was needed, why the so and so umpire is silly and why BCCI are stupid etc. etc. But without that aid of technology (which has its flaws, as has been proven), it is obvious none of us are any wiser after the normal replays than the umpires and things have just been a lot more quiet.

Of course the fact there's been next to nobody posting on the series is completely coincidental isn't it?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Well, the fact that hawkeye got the predictive path wrong so many times shows that up, doesn't it? And the other part is, as much hardwork as the guys at hawkeye do (and I am not denying their hardwork for even one second here), it is not about 18 meters at all. Cricket balls behave a significantly different way after pitching (swing/seam/spin) and therefore, with a full ball, you end up predicting the same distance you have evidence for, after it has pitched.


Look, I am not saying hawkeye is completely wrong. But if and when there are reservations, just don't use it just because it can help you have the umpires look like morons.

How can you rightly assume Hawk-eye got the predictive path wrong every time it looks a touch dodgy? Human perception and prediction isn't flawless too you know. As you keep saying, it's about predicting what never happened.

Yeah, the 18 metres statement was an exaggeration, but it still stands that the software will almost always be reasonably accurate based on the the information it DOES know for sure, much more so than a human umpire at any rate. With a shorter length ball, there's more information than can be gathered on the ball's flight path after bouncing. With a fuller ball, there's less indication of the ball's future path, but much less time for any sideways deviation to occur, so the various factors cancel out.

Also, what's with this "making the umpires look bad" argument? If an umpire gets it wrong, I'm sure he can live with that, life goes on. If an umpire gets a lot of calls wrong, then he's obviously a **** umpire, which will unfortunately tend to make him look like a moron.

 

[Flem274*]

UDRS enables more correct decisions to be made than the human eye.

Some people don't like it because of purity of the game stuff, and the BCCI don't like it because they're weird.

And that's my story.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nope.. Take an example of the Yuvraj dismissal. Without the predictive path tracking, no one has raised the issue in the tour thread yet. And yet, had there been that replay, a number of posts would have immediately gone in, outlining exactly why DRS was needed, why the so and so umpire is silly and why BCCI are stupid etc. etc. But without that aid of technology (which has its flaws, as has been proven), it is obvious none of us are any wiser after the normal replays than the umpires and things have just been a lot more quiet..

Well that's exactly the point. The predictive path is needed because we can't tell without it.

 

[weldone]

Suggestion on DRS Rule

I have one suggestion on DRS.

Presently benefit of dubt is given to on-field umpire. How about benefit of doubt going to batsman always, regardless of field umpire's decision?

I am very fond of the old-school 'benefit of doubt going to batsman' thingy - simply because batsman gets only one chance.

 

[Athlai]

I have one suggestion on DRS.

Presently benefit of dubt is given to on-field umpire. How about benefit of doubt going to batsman always, regardless of field umpire's decision?

I am very fond of the old-school 'benefit of doubt going to batsman' thingy - simply because batsman gets only one chance.

I really think when it comes to catches that it should go to what the fielder says. Sure you can check, but if you can't prove he grassed it then the batsman should go.

Otherwise I think it should always go to the batsman, ala edges, lbw, runouts.

 

[honestbharani]

Of course the fact there's been next to nobody posting on the series is completely coincidental isn't it?

Nope.. Coz the ones who have posted have tended to complain about decisions when those replays are shown. And look, it is not wrong of them either. That is human nature. I am just saying that NOT showing those replays has helped get some perception for what the umpire is going through.

 

[honestbharani]

How can you rightly assume Hawk-eye got the predictive path wrong every time it looks a touch dodgy? Human perception and prediction isn't flawless too you know. As you keep saying, it's about predicting what never happened.

Yeah, the 18 metres statement was an exaggeration, but it still stands that the software will almost always be reasonably accurate based on the the information it DOES know for sure, much more so than a human umpire at any rate. With a shorter length ball, there's more information than can be gathered on the ball's flight path after bouncing. With a fuller ball, there's less indication of the ball's future path, but much less time for any sideways deviation to occur, so the various factors cancel out.

Also, what's with this "making the umpires look bad" argument? If an umpire gets it wrong, I'm sure he can live with that, life goes on. If an umpire gets a lot of calls wrong, then he's obviously a **** umpire, which will unfortunately tend to make him look like a moron.

I don't. I am talking based on the tests they have done and samples like that Warne ball to Strauss in the 2005 Ashes. Of course, hawkeye has apparently improved and become more accurate, but I guess it isn't 100% and perhaps will never be, even when projecting for balls that did go through upto the stumps and/or keeper.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nope.. Coz the ones who have posted have tended to complain about decisions when those replays are shown. And look, it is not wrong of them either. That is human nature. I am just saying that NOT showing those replays has helped get some perception for what the umpire is going through.

Fair enough then. DRS isn't about chastising and blaming umpires though. My entire point is that they're human and the nature of cricket - particularly the lbw law - opens itself up to heaps of human error in decision-making that we could really do without. We don't need HawkEye because umpiring standards are poor; we need it because umpiring is ****ing hard.

 

[honestbharani]

Well that's exactly the point. The predictive path is needed because we can't tell without it.

no.. the predictive path of the hawkeye is not always accurate and need not be, either. We are just ASSUMING that it will show the correct path. And if you need the predictive path to know whether the decision was right/wrong, it is obvious it isn't a howler which, they say, DRS is there to eliminate. Look, LBWs are subjective and they always will be. The more technology aids you have, the more complicated it gets. I am all for using the hawkeye to see where it pitched, where it hit the pad etc. But I am becoming less and less sold to the idea of using the predictive or projected path of the ball every day.

 

[Furball]

Nope.. Coz the ones who have posted have tended to complain about decisions when those replays are shown. And look, it is not wrong of them either. That is human nature. I am just saying that NOT showing those replays has helped get some perception for what the umpire is going through.

Nah, I can't agree with your opinion at all.

Sky and Channel 4 have been showing HawkEye graphics for years because the viewers wanted to see them. The difference now is that people get more frustrated when HawkEye shows that an umpire has made a mistake, because there's a system in place to correct such obvious errors that is being obstructed by a single board who are being stupid for some unknown reason.

Pretty much no-one has complained about the decision Watson got in the last test in the 2nd innings because the option was there for Watson to refer it and he didn't take. When Aleem Dar wrongly reprived Michael Hussey at Brisbane in the 1st Ashes Test, the frustration lay with Strauss for wasting our two previous reviews.

 

[honestbharani]

Fair enough then. DRS isn't about chastising and blaming umpires though. My entire point is that they're human and the nature of cricket - particularly the lbw law - opens itself up to heaps of human error in decision-making that we could really do without. We don't need HawkEye because umpiring standards are poor; we need it because umpiring is ****ing hard.

see my post above. Obviously, I want some form of DRS but as I have been saying, I am becoming less and less convinced about using the predictive path technology.


What I was trying to point out, from my initial post, was that in series where there is no DRS, it makes sense to NOT show the predictive path and hotspot replays. I guess I have done a real lousy job of getting that point across, but that was the point all along.

 

[Prince EWS]

Pretty much no-one has complained about the decision Watson got in the last test in the 2nd innings because the option was there for Watson to refer it and he didn't take.

See, I still think that's dire. Players shouldn't have to be umpires IMO, and the fact that Watson chose not to refer his lbw doesn't make the decision any less of a blight on the game. But that's a separate debate altogether.

 

[Furball]

no.. the predictive path of the hawkeye is not always accurate and need not be, either. We are just ASSUMING that it will show the correct path. And if you need the predictive path to know whether the decision was right/wrong, it is obvious it isn't a howler which, they say, DRS is there to eliminate. Look, LBWs are subjective and they always will be. The more technology aids you have, the more complicated it gets. I am all for using the hawkeye to see where it pitched, where it hit the pad etc. But I am becoming less and less sold to the idea of using the predictive or projected path of the ball every day.

Can you give some examples of where the predicted path has obviously got it wrong?

 

[Prince EWS]

see my post above. Obviously, I want some form of DRS but as I have been saying, I am becoming less and less convinced about using the predictive path technology.


What I was trying to point out, from my initial post, was that in series where there is no DRS, it makes sense to NOT show the predictive path and hotspot replays. I guess I have done a real lousy job of getting that point across, but that was the point all along.

In series where there is no DRS they just shouldn't bother playing at all.

 

[honestbharani]

Nah, I can't agree with your opinion at all.

Sky and Channel 4 have been showing HawkEye graphics for years because the viewers wanted to see them. The difference now is that people get more frustrated when HawkEye shows that an umpire has made a mistake, because there's a system in place to correct such obvious errors that is being obstructed by a single board who are being stupid for some unknown reason.

Pretty much no-one has complained about the decision Watson got in the last test in the 2nd innings because the option was there for Watson to refer it and he didn't take. When Aleem Dar wrongly reprived Michael Hussey at Brisbane in the 1st Ashes Test, the frustration lay with Strauss for wasting our two previous reviews.

Again, you are preaching to the choir. I have supported DRS and always have. Right now, I believe we should not use the predictive path technology alone, does not mean I do not want the DRS at all. Just that, if DRS is not being used, it is a good idea to not show those replays.

 

[Prince EWS]

Can you give some examples of where the predicted path has obviously got it wrong?

Since HawkEye were happy enough with their own technology to suggest it be used as an umpiring aid, there has been just the one (Phil Hughes in Sri Lanka), I believe.

And look, even if there had been five, that's much fewer than the amount of times a standing umpire has got one obviously wrong in that period.