***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[honestbharani]

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.

Yes.. 6 cameras and hundreds of data points. I read that. But it still does get it wrong, which is the crux. It can assume the ball will go the same way of how it was going on impact but will never provide for the exaggerated seam/swing/spin that many bowlers get, that umpires try to provide for. And by giving the tracking upto impact, you are empowering the umpire with the same data you provide to hawkeye to make that prediction. And if that is taken care of, I always trust an experienced umpire to make a better prediction of where the ball would have gone than technology, which, while it has all the data is generally dumb when it comes to judgements.

 

[honestbharani]

Allow for them to make their own LBW laws up?

Jesus man...

yeah, laws never evolve..

 

[Flem274*]

yeah, laws never evolve..

Not in several different directions at the same time, no. There's very good reasons for that.

Yes.. 6 cameras and hundreds of data points. I read that. But it still does get it wrong, which is the crux. It can assume the ball will go the same way of how it was going on impact but will never provide for the exaggerated seam/swing/spin that many bowlers get, that umpires try to provide for. And by giving the tracking upto impact, you are empowering the umpire with the same data you provide to hawkeye to make that prediction. And if that is taken care of, I always trust an experienced umpire to make a better prediction of where the ball would have gone than technology, which, while it has all the data is generally dumb when it comes to judgements.

UDRS allows for exaggerated turn because it's tracking that turn. Human eyes, frankly, suck.

Lets pretend we have a curve, and two people are going to judge where the curve will be two metres from it's terminus. Person A gets one second to see the curve before it disappears. Person B gets five minutes, hundreds of coordinates along the the curve, and a computer with a graph builder.

Who is going to judge the curve better?

 

[honestbharani]

Not in several different directions at the same time, no. There's very good reasons for that.



UDRS allows for exaggerated turn because it's tracking that turn. Human eyes, frankly, suck.

Lets pretend we have a curve, and two people are going to judge where the curve will be two metres from it's terminus. Person A gets one second to see the curve before it disappears. Person B gets five minutes, hundreds of coordinates along the the curve, and a computer with a graph builder.

Who is going to judge the curve better?

Is the curve impacted by all the external factors that seam/swing/spin are impacted by? Frankly, if you think predicting a curve and this are the same, then.......

 

[ankitj]

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?

HB, I do think the umpires treat the ball as going straight on if it hits the ball on full. Never had a doubt about that rule and its application, and never felt it was unfair.

 

[Flem274*]

Is the curve impacted by all the external factors that seam/swing/spin are impacted by? Frankly, if you think predicting a curve and this are the same, then.......

Of course it's the ****ing same. What else do you call a bouncing and swinging ball? It hardly makes a square.

Whatever external factors you're talking about, like grass on the pitch or how many clouds are in the sky, do not matter because the ball is being tracked through the air until it hits the pads, not predicted. After that, it still has more information to go on than an umpire because it knows exactly where and how the ball has travelled as opposed to the general idea the human eye gives you.

 

[Cevno]

This thread is going round in circles. Posted interview with the makers of virtual eye who admitted the uncertaintly about accuracy vis a vis human eye and also data of examples earlier showing how predictive path can be wrong.

ICC also have admitted unless the last time they went back on DRS that they never got it tested independently and the makers never allowed their officials access to check cameras or software/any part of technology under the terms of contract.

 

[honestbharani]

HB, I do think the umpires treat the ball as going straight on if it hits the ball on full. Never had a doubt about that rule and its application, and never felt it was unfair.

on the full.. the keyword. I am talking about when it is off the bounce..

 

[honestbharani]

Of course it's the ****ing same. What else do you call a bouncing and swinging ball? It hardly makes a square.

Whatever external factors you're talking about, like grass on the pitch or how many clouds are in the sky, do not matter because the ball is being tracked through the air until it hits the pads, not predicted. After that, it still has more information to go on than an umpire because it knows exactly where and how the ball has travelled as opposed to the general idea the human eye gives you.

And again, you keep missing the point. I am saying use the tracking to show an umpire what happened better.. But still trust the umpire to make a better call on where it would end up than technology. Of course, the balls swing and seam or spin more in some cases than others.. It has always been that way. You are just assuming that the amount the ball deviated off the pitch at impact will always be at the same proportion till it hits the wickets and anyone who has played the game at any level knows it is not always the case. Hence you need the human intervention. There are limitations to technology that you people don't even seem to understand.. Any gizmo is bound to fail if not controlled properly. And they are always unreliable when it comes to making judgements and predictions when external factors are involved. These are just basic issues with technology that have been around forever, and the reason why most do not trust technology to make judgement calls or predictions.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I need to stop reading, otherwise I might gouge my own eyes out.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

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..

Yeah a full toss definitely isn't a full delivery, my mistake.

 

[Burgey]

The salient point in this thread is India will keep losing 4-0 every away series unless they improve, be it with the help of technology or the human eye.

 

[honestbharani]

The latest conspiracy theory is that if UDRS were employed, Sachin would be eaten alive by spinners... So BCCI are not agreeing to it.

 

[M0rphin3]

Of course it's the ****ing same. What else do you call a bouncing and swinging ball? It hardly makes a square.

Whatever external factors you're talking about, like grass on the pitch or how many clouds are in the sky, do not matter because the ball is being tracked through the air until it hits the pads, not predicted. After that, it still has more information to go on than an umpire because it knows exactly where and how the ball has travelled as opposed to the general idea the human eye gives you.

Pretty much this - there's the obvious error margin etc. - but we're talking about pros vs cons here - I'd say Hawk Eye wins by a fair margin there. Besides that error margin itself is taken into account as the marginal ones (clipping the stumps/bails) are basically umpires call, so dunno what the issue is.

 

[GIMH]

Can I just check, are the actual rules being debated here? Ie **** that had nothing to do with DRS but guidelines that have always been there? Ludicrous. I thought everyone knew the rules when a batsman gets hit on the full. Bizarre.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yeah it's pretty hopeless doc

 

[vic_orthdox]

If you miss a full toss, then you deserve to get out.

 

[uvelocity]

mine are pretty tricky ftr

 

[weldone]

If you miss a full toss, then you deserve to get out.

That's being critical of batsmen. Similarly, a critic of bowlers might say:

If you bowl a full toss, then you don't deserve a wicket.

 

[Scaly piscine]

That's being critical of batsmen. Similarly, a critic of bowlers might say:

If you bowl a full toss, then you don't deserve a wicket.

That would pretty much rule out Brett Lee or Dan Christian ever deservedly taking another wicket in their career. Seems reasonable to me.