***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[hazsa19]

for sure. i just can't believe anyone could have a differing opinion in that particular instance.

But I think there are LBW's being given by hawkeye that were never given out in the past, and are never given all through the lower levels of cricket.

I agree with having a third umpire get rid of the howlers but I'm not liking hawkeye for deciding if its LBW or not

In other words; "umpires have always got it wrong so they should carry on getting it wrong".

The increase in lbws has been one of the best developments in cricket over the last few years. You actually want to watch batsman thrusting out their pads against spin and getting away with it, batsman constantly being given the benefit of doubt having played a poor shot or even no shot?

Are you one of these cricket fans that think a good pitch is a 500 plays 450?

 

[hazsa19]

for sure. i just can't believe anyone could have a differing opinion in that particular instance.

But I think there are LBW's being given by hawkeye that were never given out in the past, and are never given all through the lower levels of cricket.

I agree with having a third umpire get rid of the howlers but I'm not liking hawkeye for deciding if its LBW or not

You can thank the decision to bring in neutral umpires for that

 

[uvelocity]

In other words; "umpires have always got it wrong so they should carry on getting it wrong".

not at all. I think it's a case of "this has never been an LBW, now it is"

when you have an unaided umpire, he needs to be completely sure that it is definitely out.

with hawkeye it adds so much more accuracy, and removes so much doubt, that it results in a different decision. I don't agree with that.

 

[hazsa19]

not at all. I think it's a case of "this has never been an LBW, now it is"

when you have an unaided umpire, he needs to be completely sure that it is definitely out.

with hawkeye it adds so much more accuracy, and removes so much doubt, that it results in a different decision. I don't agree with that.

Right...because DRS has shown just how wrong we've all been for so long

 

[SteveNZ]

Cricket: Eye could be turned off after criticisms - Cricket - NZ Herald News

DRS man has packed a sad.

 

[uvelocity]

no. umpires have been generally right, if they can't tell for sure that it's definitely out, it's not out. Taking into account doubt does not make it a wrong decision.

You can't remove the doubt except with hawkeye, and that means a different decision in top level cricket compared to every other level of the game.

The umpires call ruling, with the amounts of tolerance in where hawkeye thinks the ball would strike or not strike the stumps does not reflect the benefit of the doubt in the way it's been applied in the past, and in other grades of cricket.

Here's one example; ball strikes bat and pad together, appeal, not out, review. Slow mo replay shows the ball hit pad first by a fraction of a second. overturned, out. Right decision was made, but in all of history, and in every park and field in the cricket world the right decision was not out, because it was impossible to say for sure. I'd rather it was given not out.

Now if the ball pitches a foot outside leg and it's given, reviewed, overturned - I have no problem with that reversal, as it's an umpring blunder which is clear, and shouldn't occur in a perfect world.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Yeah, the game should never advance along with technology.

 

[uvelocity]

yeah ****

 

[hazsa19]

Honestly have no clue what your point is regarding umpiring in lower levels of cricket?

"DRS shouldn't be employed 'cos they don't have it on village greens." Is that it the point? I hope not

 

[Furball]

no. umpires have been generally right, if they can't tell for sure that it's definitely out, it's not out. Taking into account doubt does not make it a wrong decision.

You can't remove the doubt except with hawkeye, and that means a different decision in top level cricket compared to every other level of the game.

The umpires call ruling, with the amounts of tolerance in where hawkeye thinks the ball would strike or not strike the stumps does not reflect the benefit of the doubt in the way it's been applied in the past, and in other grades of cricket.

Here's one example; ball strikes bat and pad together, appeal, not out, review. Slow mo replay shows the ball hit pad first by a fraction of a second. overturned, out. Right decision was made, but in all of history, and in every park and field in the cricket world the right decision was not out, because it was impossible to say for sure. I'd rather it was given not out.

Now if the ball pitches a foot outside leg and it's given, reviewed, overturned - I have no problem with that reversal, as it's an umpring blunder which is clear, and shouldn't occur in a perfect world.

Yes it does. That's why there's the whole 2.5m rule, and that's why balls hitting the outer half of leg stump go to "umpire's call." HawkEye have always said that they don't want to drastically alter the way the game is played. I actually think the umpire's call parameter is too conservative - there are 3 stumps for a reason, and just because there's been a general incorrect assumption that the leg stump is actually the width of a hair doesn't mean that umpires should continue to make those assumptions now that technology has proven them wrong.

 

[hazsa19]

no. umpires have been generally right, if they can't tell for sure that it's definitely out, it's not out. Taking into account doubt does not make it a wrong decision.

You can't remove the doubt except with hawkeye, and that means a different decision in top level cricket compared to every other level of the game.

The umpires call ruling, with the amounts of tolerance in where hawkeye thinks the ball would strike or not strike the stumps does not reflect the benefit of the doubt in the way it's been applied in the past, and in other grades of cricket.

Here's one example; ball strikes bat and pad together, appeal, not out, review. Slow mo replay shows the ball hit pad first by a fraction of a second. overturned, out. Right decision was made, but in all of history, and in every park and field in the cricket world the right decision was not out, because it was impossible to say for sure. I'd rather it was given not out.

Now if the ball pitches a foot outside leg and it's given, reviewed, overturned - I have no problem with that reversal, as it's an umpring blunder which is clear, and shouldn't occur in a perfect world.

Nonsense. Everyone on the cricketing planet knows that it hit pad first and you want to give the batsman benefit because of some sentimental attachment to the way things used to be?

What about run-outs? The batsman pushes one to cover and sets off, the fielder scores with direct hit; removing the bails with the bat an inch short of the crease. In the old days, it's not out. In village cricket, it's not out (hopefully), in Test Cricket it is referred and the correct decision is made.

Personally, I don't see the difference.

 

[morgieb]

HawkEye's still more accurate than your eyesight though...

 

[uvelocity]

Nonsense. Everyone on the cricketing planet knows that it hit pad first and you want to give the batsman benefit because of some sentimental attachment to the way things used to be?

What about run-outs? The batsman pushes one to cover and sets off, the fielder scores with direct hit; removing the bails with the bat an inch short of the crease. In the old days, it's not out. In village cricket, it's not out (hopefully), in Test Cricket it is referred and the correct decision is made.

Personally, I don't see the difference.

That's a pretty **** first paragraph, it's not what I said at all. Quite the opposite. And I don't just mean amateur cricket. How about kids playing, learning the game, moving to age grade rep teams, through to first class cricket, and then the application of a rule is completely different when they make it to the top.

Although your point regarding runouts is quite a good comparison.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

The rules don't change once you get to the top level though, they just get enforced better.

 

[uvelocity]

must be speaking french

 

[Flem274*]

This sums up my thoughts nicely.

The eventual decision to use it was explained frankly by Richardson. "The bottom line is that they are going to be more consistent and more accurate than the human eye, that is just natural," he said. "So when Jacques Kallis says that 99% of the players don't support it, I don't think he's correct."

New Zealand v South Africa, 1st Test, 5th day: DRS to continue in New Zealand-South Africa Tests | Cricket News | New Zealand v South Africa | ESPN Cricinfo

DRS isn't perfect, but umpires are far, far worse.

Nonsensical for NZ to be against it as well considering half the cricketing world judges Vettori lbw appeals taking into account turn he doesn't get and New Zealand would have lost at Hobart without it.

 

[honestbharani]

The LBW rule states that when the batsman is hit on the full (or very close to it) the umpire must assume that the ball would travel straight on.

Hawkeye doesn't need to be able to predict stuff like that because it hasn't happened.

yes.. Hawkeye is predicting stuff that hasn't happened and the people in the game are not convinced it is making the most reasonable guesses.. It is really not that hard to understand.

 

[honestbharani]

Could you actually back one of your arguments up with something other than hearsay. This is BCCI level criticism so far.

In general it's not that difficult to predict the path of the ball when your tracking is as accurate as it is shown for Hawkeye. Seeing the ball bounce and joining the dots for the height when it passes the stumps is not difficult, yet people still constantly criticise Hawkeye on it. We know that there is a bigger margin of error where the ball pitched close to the point of contact, we can figure out other things that will make the margin bigger. But that isn't the issue here. People are making baseless statements about not trusting the bounce, or nonsense about it being a guess that is as flawed as a human...

How exactly can you prove a prediction wrong? It is a question of what people's mind thinks would likely have happened Vs what technology thinks would likely have happened... And the guys who played the game at a million levels higher than you even think you did, are saying they don't think it is making the most likely guesses... Of course, you know better than the folks who play at the highest level possible for a living...

 

[honestbharani]

This would be interesting if it wasn't completely wrong

This reply to your post would be worth something if your post actually had a point...

 

[honestbharani]

Technology going wrong/ breaking from time to time is a very different argument to the one you have been making. I would hope that technicians identify when things go wrong and work hard to ensure that specific problem doesn't happen again.

That does not mean it should not be used. Find me a technology that never ever breaks down for whatever reason? Technology is still more reliable that humans.

yes, when it comes to showing what happened or doing repeated tasks... Technology IS NOT PROVEN to be better than humans in processing tracked information and making accurate assumptions and likely guesses... If it was, we would be having robots running countries and corporations, not people..