***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[benchmark00]

Problem with the BBL system is that it just goes off regular vision, which will overturn some wronge decisions, but won't others.

No point having a DRS if you don't use snicko etc.

 

[Spikey]

I look forward to the Aus-(x) match where the Aus slip cordon is convinced there's an edge and all of them pretty much storm the umpire who then reviews it and there's indeed an edge.

 

[andyc]

Didn't they let umpires review decisions like five years ago (might have been during the ICC World XI series)? Seem to remember it going down poorly.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah the ICC XI World Series, think they tried some sort of system in a Champions Trophy once, but the decision could only be overturned if it was incorrect based on what the Umpire asked (don't actually remember the system but read it in one of Duncan Fletcher's books)

So something like this:

Umpire refers a slip catch because he isn't sure if the batsman hit it. So he asks the third umpire if he hit it.

The third umpire reviews with the technology and sees that yes, the batsman did hit it. He also sees that the slip catcher took it on the bounce. So not out. But the Umpire didn't ask about whether the catch was clean - he asked if the batsman hit it. So...out it is.

I might not be remembering it 100% accurately, but it was something like that

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

When the "DRS" was first introduced they left too much up to the umpires and it was a complete failure.

 

[honestbharani]

New Zealand v South Africa, 1st Test: Jacques Kallis unconvinced by ball-tracking technology | Cricket News | New Zealand v South Africa | ESPN Cricinfo



So, I was not alone..

 

[wellAlbidarned]

"How accurate it is, I don't know. Have decisions improved? I think they have but we have got to accept that there are probably one or two that, as cricketers, we will think 'I'm not so sure', but maybe that's an improvement on absolute shockers which is what you wanted to take out of the game. We are getting that right to a degree but I am not convinced how accurate it really is."

That's exactly what happens with the UDRS though. If it's marginal, it stays with the umpire.

 

[Furball]

So Kallis' method of 'improving' DRS is to take the predictive part out and make the 3rd umpire guess?

****ing genius.

 

[Satguru]

So Kallis' method of 'improving' DRS is to take the predictive part out and make the 3rd umpire guess?

****ing genius.

Strange as it may sound, i completely agree with him... a simple replay shown to the third umpire with all available camera angles can help him make the correct decision. Everyone has said that the main aim of UDRS is to remove the howlers... with this system, obviously the howlers will be removed Eg: obviously the third umpire wont give an LBW if theres an inside edge, or if he sees it pitched outisde leg in the replay. For the 50-50 decisions, hawkeye has been very dodgy... and it just might be better to use the third umpire instead of blindly trusting a technology which virtually everyone agrees is nowhere near perfect

 

[Furball]

Strange as it may sound, i completely agree with him... a simple replay shown to the third umpire with all available camera angles can help him make the correct decision. Everyone has said that the main aim of UDRS is to remove the howlers... with this system, obviously the howlers will be removed Eg: obviously the third umpire wont give an LBW if theres an inside edge, or if he sees it pitched outisde leg in the replay. For the 50-50 decisions, hawkeye has been very dodgy... and it just might be better to use the third umpire instead of blindly trusting a technology which virtually everyone agrees is nowhere near perfect

You're still asking the third umpire to guess. How is that better than a system which removes the guesswork altogether?

The players' complaints are based around stupid logic - HawkEye didn't show what I expected, therefore it's wrong.'

 

[smash84]

GF weren't you in the same group in the chucking thread i.e. "somebody who seems a chucker must be a chucker" group? (I might be wrong)

 

[hazsa19]

Can't believe we're still having this debate. It's madness.

Hawk-eye isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than a bloke, even when hes been designated by the icc as an 'elite umpire'.

 

[Satguru]

Can't believe we're still having this debate. It's madness.

Hawk-eye isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than a bloke, even when hes been designated by the icc as an 'elite umpire'.

Ummm... Hawkeye is definitely better than an on-field umpire having to make a split-second decision, but is it better than a third umpire who has a good 30 seconds to analyse the incident from a number of camera angles? probably yeah, but both approaches effectively prevent howlers

 

[marc71178]

Strange as it may sound, i completely agree with him... a simple replay shown to the third umpire with all available camera angles can help him make the correct decision.

No, the problem with people's moaning about Hawkeye is because the camera angles aren't completely straight on.

 

[uvelocity]

Strange as it may sound, i completely agree with him... a simple replay shown to the third umpire with all available camera angles can help him make the correct decision. Everyone has said that the main aim of UDRS is to remove the howlers... with this system, obviously the howlers will be removed Eg: obviously the third umpire wont give an LBW if theres an inside edge, or if he sees it pitched outisde leg in the replay. For the 50-50 decisions, hawkeye has been very dodgy... and it just might be better to use the third umpire instead of blindly trusting a technology which virtually everyone agrees is nowhere near perfect

agree

 

[hazsa19]

Ummm... Hawkeye is definitely better than an on-field umpire having to make a split-second decision, but is it better than a third umpire who has a good 30 seconds to analyse the incident from a number of camera angles? probably yeah, but both approaches effectively prevent howlers

So this 3rd umpire will be guessing using his eyes, looking at a monitor? And you want to see that? That is acceptable to you?

We have access to a high powered computer that can almost instantly use the principle of triangulation to interpret data provided by four or more high speed cameras!

 

[Scaly piscine]

The players' complaints are based around stupid logic - HawkEye didn't show what I expected, therefore it's wrong.'

Yep. Particularly those people saying they don't trust Hawkeye on 'height'. Because a human using a misleading perspective in 2D is in such a great position to judge. ****wits.

 

[Furball]

Ummm... Hawkeye is definitely better than an on-field umpire having to make a split-second decision, but is it better than a third umpire who has a good 30 seconds to analyse the incident from a number of camera angles? probably yeah, but both approaches effectively prevent howlers

Of course it's better.

 

[honestbharani]

You're still asking the third umpire to guess. How is that better than a system which removes the guesswork altogether?

The players' complaints are based around stupid logic - HawkEye didn't show what I expected, therefore it's wrong.'

The LBW rule itself is based on a GUESS. The genius idea of yours is to simply have technology make that GUESS instead of Human Beings but the point of most people is, the technology seems to be just as flawed as any human mind when it comes to these guesses.

 

[honestbharani]

No, the problem with people's moaning about Hawkeye is because the camera angles aren't completely straight on.

No, the main problem with hawkeye is it cannot simulate the amount of swing/seam/spin on a ball, esp. the ones that hit an impact close to where it pitched..