Channel 9 finally bow to benchmark00 pressure

[Red]

no, it will only get overturned if the whole ball is missing the stumps.

Pretty sure it gets overturned if more than half the ball is missing the stumps.

Or at least that's how it was...

Or am I mental?

 

[hendrix]

Pretty sure it gets overturned if more than half the ball is missing the stumps.

Or at least that's how it was...

Or am I mental?

Nope, it's only overturned if the whole ball is missing.

What you're thinking of is if less than half the ball pitched in line with the stumps (i.e. more than half is outside leg stump) or hit the batsman outside the line of offstump.

 

[marc71178]

Pretty sure it gets overturned if more than half the ball is missing the stumps.

Or at least that's how it was...

Or am I mental?

That's the umpire's call element isn't it?

 

[benchmark00]

Australia vs England, 2nd test match 2013-2014. Adelaide oval.

England first innings 33.2 overs in.

Thanks for playing, boys.

 

[Cabinet96]

Nah, come on.

 

[andyc]

Yeah you're laughing if you think that's a false positive. Any mark that was there showed up higher up the bat, after the ball had passed, and I'm not even convinced it was a mark on the bat rather than a reflection or some such. If Tubby Taylor can deduce that it wasn't an edge, it's not an issue.

 

[benchmark00]

Holy ****. Read this thread re: false positives and whether or not it's relevant where it is on the bat.


Nomnomnomnomnom.

 

[hendrix]

O hai

 

[benchmark00]

What? The mark wasn't an edge noise, it was beyond the bat when the noise was made. So what are you saying? It was just a **** decision.

Good try though, obv still reeling from false positivegate last match.

 

[Dan]

I've seen people suggesting that the whole snicko for that was rigged. Like Channel 9 could somehow insert their own sound into the footage in seconds, and would want to screw Joe Root over in that particular way.

Tin foil hats over that way etc.

 

[Flem274*]

small earthquake just after the ball passed the bat imo.

 

[ganeshran]

Just use the pitch map to check for balls pitched outside leg stump and very clear visible deflections that can be seen by the naked eye. DRS should be used only to prevent obvious howlers, not marginal calls.

 

[Spark]

I don't understand people's obsession over doubting the "validity" of the predictive path, especially over questions of height. It's simple physics ffs, you could give it to a high school student as a problem and they'd get the right answer, assuming that you've got the point of impact and the ball's velocity about right.

 

[Burgey]

What? The mark wasn't an edge noise, it was beyond the bat when the noise was made. So what are you saying? It was just a **** decision.

Good try though, obv still reeling from false positivegate last match.

I read the other day the umpires had been briefed on real time snicko to expect the noises to show up slightly after the ball passes the edge. I dunnot if that's right or not and really don't give a ****. What it tells you though is benchmark00 Limited should have invested in delayed noise graphics, which are now going gang busters.

 

[uvelocity]

I don't understand people's obsession over doubting the "validity" of the predictive path, especially over questions of height. It's simple physics ffs, you could give it to a high school student as a problem and they'd get the right answer, assuming that you've got the point of impact and the ball's velocity about right.

i posted this in the match thread after the fact, but there was one that i think watson left, and it missed the off stump by a bees dick. the hawkeye of that delivery had the ball missing off stump by a couple of centimetres, and that wasn't even a prediction, it should have been purely ball tracking. would love to see/show a reverse angle of the actual vs the hawkeye.

 

[benchmark00]

I don't understand people's obsession over doubting the "validity" of the predictive path, especially over questions of height. It's simple physics ffs, you could give it to a high school student as a problem and they'd get the right answer, assuming that you've got the point of impact and the ball's velocity about right.

How does that take into consideration potential dip and swing though?

 

[wiff]

How does that take into consideration potential dip and swing though?

Magnus effect incalculable IMHO

 

[ganeshran]

I don't understand people's obsession over doubting the "validity" of the predictive path, especially over questions of height. It's simple physics ffs, you could give it to a high school student as a problem and they'd get the right answer, assuming that you've got the point of impact and the ball's velocity about right.

It is not that simple. You have to account for lateral movement in the air and movement off the pitch. Those become tricky because the prediction change depending on when the ball hit the pad after pitching.

 

[Spark]

How does that take into consideration potential dip and swing though?

I'm pretty sure the laws of the game mean the umpires should assume that the ball goes "straight on" after impact ie. no unusual swing or dip.

 

[Jarquis]

I'm pretty sure the laws of the game mean the umpires should assume that the ball goes "straight on" after impact ie. no unusual swing or dip.

That's for balls which impact on the full