***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[weldone]

nah disagree. Point one, for this to happen the player is going to be near the stumps, so it's likely that most deliveries would hit the wickets somewhere. If the player is charging down and hit flush the umpire will have plenty of doubt to give it not out.

Point two is that the ump can only assume straight as to guess how much or little the ball would spin, and even which direction in some cases would be approaching impossible.

Point three is that if the batsman is hit by a ball which hasn't even hit the ground yet, he deserves to be out.

bolded part is precisely the reason I want such situations be automatically deemed not out

 

[Cevno]

Technology doesn't make mistakes ffs. And if the accuracy was as low as 50%, then it wouldn't be getting used.

You're building a straw man argument here.

edit: and ironically, it will be through the use of technology that you declare a decision to be incorrect.

Just because it shows a fancy path and all?

The maker of Virtual eye has admitted himself that technology is still doubtful as far as predictable path is concerned and can't pick up many things that a onfield umpire can. I guess you know better than him based on nothing though.

Also, the ICC after reversing it's earlier decision on making UDRS mandatory said it will get the technology testes by a independent evaluator to see if it is worth persisting with. Something which so bewilderingly hadn't done before and relied foolishly just on what the makers website did i presume.

On a side note, the companies involved did not allow ICC officials to get access to the cameras or the software at any point under the terms of contract earlier either, even to inspect .

 

[uvelocity]

bolded part is precisely the reason I want such situations be automatically deemed not out

so the batsman can kick every ball away as long as it doesnt bounce yet. socket. nice.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I am amazed that I didn't know about this part of the LBW rule.

This part of the rule looks rubbish to me TBH. In essence, we are saying that Warne's and Muralitharan's deliveries don't spin after pitching at all, and that all of Saeed Ajmal's stock delivery, doosra and teesra are exactly the same delivery and all are same as Mohammad Sami's pies.

I personally think those full tosses that hit batsmen on the pads and are expected to pitch once before reaching the stumps should be given not out as a rule.

This is not an anti-DRS point by the way, for those who don't understand.

Seriously, if you miss a slow full toss dead in front of the stumps then you deserve to be sent packing.

 

[weldone]

so the batsman can kick every ball away as long as it doesnt bounce yet. socket. nice.

No, only the deliveries that don't bounce yet and are expected to bounce before reaching the stumps...

 

[Cevno]

The point is that using a 95% technology as a secondary mechanism to a system that is 90% accurate is as good as worthless (assuming the first 90% fully coincides with the 95%).

No production manager will use a testing system that is 95% accurate to detect errors in a production unit that is already 90% accurate. The outcome will be full or false positives and/or false negatives. A 95% accurate testing mechanism is great when the production is about 70-75% accurate. That's the point.

EDIT: To repeat, I am not against DRS. I don't even tow the BCCI line of the system not being 100%. It doesn't have to, but it has to be significantly superior than the on-field umpires. I don't know if that is already the case.

Yeah, agreed. And there is nothing to prove concretely either way right now.

Infact, there is even doubt as to if it is more accurate than on field umpires vis a vis only predictive path is concerned.(Not the graphic before that).

 

[weldone]

Seriously, if you miss a slow full toss dead in front of the stumps then you deserve to be sent packing.

So a batsman should be out for padding up an attempted legspinner from Shane Warne that would have pitched on off and missed the off-stump by a mile?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

So a batsman should be out for padding up an attempted legspinner from Shane Warne that would have pitched on off and missed the off-stump by a mile?

...why the **** would a batsman pad up to a full toss in front of off?

 

[Cevno]

No, only the deliveries that don't bounce yet and are expected to bounce before reaching the stumps...

That only confuses the rule further though. Not only has the umpire to judge where the ball will go after pitching (doosra,flipper,teesra etc..), he will also have to judge whether the ball was bouncing or not.

 

[weldone]

That only confuses the rule further though. Not only has the umpire to judge where the ball will go after pitching (doosra,flipper,teesra etc..), he will also have to judge whether the ball was bouncing or not.

He doesn't have to do the bolded part, you aren't reading my posts properly..

 

[wellAlbidarned]

He doesn't have to do the bolded part, you aren't reading my posts properly..

No, that's exactly what you're saying.

 

[weldone]

no, that's exactly what you're saying.

i am amazed that i didn't know about this part of the lbw rule.

This part of the rule looks rubbish to me tbh. In essence, we are saying that warne's and muralitharan's deliveries don't spin after pitching at all, and that all of saeed ajmal's stock delivery, doosra and teesra are exactly the same delivery and all are same as mohammad sami's pies.

i personally think those full tosses that hit batsmen on the pads and are expected to pitch once before reaching the stumps should be given not out as a rule.

this is not an anti-drs point by the way, for those who don't understand.

no

 

[wellAlbidarned]

The point is that using a 95% technology as a secondary check on a system that is 90% accurate is as good as worthless (assuming the first 90% fully coincides with the 95%).

No production manager will use a testing system that is 95% accurate to detect errors in a production unit that is already 90% accurate. The outcome will be full or false positives and/or false negatives. A 95% accurate testing mechanism is great when the production is about 70-75% accurate. That's the point.

EDIT: To repeat, I am not against DRS. I don't even tow the BCCI line of the system not being 100%. It doesn't have to, but it has to be significantly superior than the on-field umpires. I don't know if that is already the case.

I don't even...

Using a 95% system on top a 90% system results in a 99.5% over accuracy, as the system is only intended for use on the incorrect 10% of decisions of the standard system.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

no

...yes, otherwise what on earth is your basis for giving them not out? The umpire would have to

A) make the JUDGEMENT that the delivery would bounce before the stumps

and

B) make the JUDGDEMENT that the ball would deviate significantly to miss

 

[weldone]

I don't even...

Using a 95% system on top a 90% system results in a 99.5% over accuracy, as the system is only intended for use on the incorrect 10% of decisions of the standard system.

....under the VERY BIG assumption that if the system is 95% accurate on average, it will be 95% accurate on the reviews (which are expected to be much more marginal calls in general than average)???

 

[weldone]

...yes, otherwise what on earth is your basis for giving them not out? The umpire would have to

A) make the JUDGEMENT that the delivery would bounce before the stumps

and

B) make the JUDGDEMENT that the ball would deviate significantly to miss

No. The umpire would have to

A) make the JUDGEMENT that the delivery would bounce before the stumps

and

B) not make the JUDGDEMENT whether the delivery would deviate significantly to miss or not because such judgements can't be made by umpires and therefore give the batsman benefit of doubt

 

[Arachnodouche]

I think fulltosses cannot be presupposed to spin while giving LBWs just because the bowler is a spinner. That's relying on a priori assumptions, and while it probably will turn on pitching (wherever that may be), one can only go with the evidence in play during that particular delivery.

 

[weldone]

I think fulltosses cannot be presupposed to spin while giving LBWs just because the bowler is a spinner.

'Can they be presupposed not to spin?' is the question.

 

[weldone]

one can only go with the evidence in play during that particular delivery.

There is none.

 

[Cevno]

I don't even...

Using a 95% system on top a 90% system results in a 99.5% over accuracy, as the system is only intended for use on the incorrect 10% of decisions of the standard system.

He was talking on the whole though....