wellAlbidarned
International Coach
You don't use it for every single decision, no-one's saying that umpires are wrong 100% of the time.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** DRS discussion thread
- Thread starter morgieb
- Start date
wellAlbidarned
International Coach
Yes, because otherwise you open up a MASSIVE can of worms. The rules state that a spinning full toss must be assumed to continue straight because it's the simplest, least controversial, and easiest to judge option. End of.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Simplest? Nah, giving out LBW to every delivery that hits the pad will be the simplest
Least controversial? Remember Ian Chappell once raising this point while commentating, there must be some others too. However, it hasn't been as controversial as Mika and Rakhi Sawant's kiss I agree.
Easiest to judge? The opposite, because such cases can't be judged with any accuracy.
End of.
Arachnodouche
International Captain
There is though, isn't there? It's a straight ball that hasn't bounced. Will you also expect the umpire to look at the bowler's wrist and infer if the ball is a googly or a conventional leg beak or a doosra? It's just impractical. The law isn't ideal but it makes the best of a cloudy situation.
wellAlbidarned
International Coach
^The gist of it.
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
The logic your using is still all wrong though on more than one level.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Isn't that more about full balls? I seriously do not think any umpire is practically asked to ASSUME all this.. You always take into account the amount of spin/movement/bounce that is on offer on that particular track and provide for that..
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
To show what happened, yes. To show that technology can predict better than humans considering the factors involved in how a ball moves, I am guessing NO.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I am saying what happens, FFS. Do you really think every umpire simply assumes the ball moves the same way everytime it hits the pads?
Flem274*
123/5
Read the rules for what they're meant to do.
In answer to your question, I think some do one thing, some do another, some make it up as they go along and the rest have no ****ing clue at all.
Flem274*
123/5
Do you actually know what UDRS does?
It tracks the ball. Using the real data, it can form a prediction of what the ball will do after it hits the pad. Not that it matters when you refer to the rules outlined before.
And yes it most certainly can. UDRS has hundreds, if not thousands, of data points plotted to know how the ball has already moved, meaning it can plot the rest of the trend reasonably accurately. The human eye gets less than a second to process everything it sees, and no replays.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
And I think you gotta allow for all that. Assumption that the ball will continue the same way when it hits the pads in front of the stumps is a huge departure from what the LBW rule originally states about the mode of dismissal: A ball that hits the pads that would have otherwise hit the stumps... Of course there is the pitching criteria and hitting in line criteria but that was the gist of the dismissal..
And I have spoken to one highly regarded international umpire who says it is most difficult to judge the amount of swing and spin on certain tracks.. So he obviously DID consider it and no one from the ICC thought it fit to tell him that the laws don't say that. This is like the chucking law, isn't it? Where it states only about straigthtening the elbow but the ICC then said you could always bowl with a bent arm straightened...
