Drs

[markjohnconley]

I write regarding the DRS used on Head's dismissal.
Please correct me if i am wrong but in the 'ball tracker' section the lateral view stopped before the ball had crossed the plane of the wickets and the rear view the angle of the view was not in direct line with the ball as it approached the wickets but lower causing a parallax shift. I'm not claiming the ball wouldn't have hit the stumps but from what i saw on the Australian televised material it wasn't conclusive. Did i blink and miss the ball actually hitting the stumps on the ball tracker?, thanks, mark

 

[Cow]

Out

 

[Borges]

Haven't seen this but yes, DRS does make the occasional, fairly obvious, bloomer.
Probably still better overall than the umpires, who I'm told are too preoccupied with their other onerous and numerous responsibilities.

 

[markjohnconley]

So the 'ball tracker ' actually showed the ball HITTING the stumps?, because i was watching and there wasn't conclusive evidence. So you saw it on the coverage you were watching? This is replying to 'Cow''s post, "Out"

 

[sledger]

It'd probably be better if you saw a real Doctor about your ball tracking problems than resorting to advice on a forum tbh

 

[markjohnconley]

It'd probably be better if you saw a real Doctor about your ball tracking problems than resorting to advice on a forum tbh

'sledger', instead of a smart arse comment why don't you confirm or not whether you actually saw the ball tracker SHOW the ball HITTING the stumps, mark

 

[TheJediBrah]

It'd probably be better if you saw a real Doctor about your ball tracking problems than resorting to advice on a forum tbh

This has been bugging me since this thread was made. Mark, learn to capitalise all letters in an acronym please and thank you

 

[Prince EWS]

This has been bugging me since this thread was made. Mark, learn to capitalise all letters in an acronym please and thank you

Forum software won't let you have a thread title in all caps. He capitalised it properly in his post so I think it just "corrected" the title for him.

 

[markjohnconley]

TJB, will do my best.
Perhaps you might recall, if you watched the game, whether the 'ball tracker' actually showed the (imaginary) ball contacting the stumps, all the best, mark
That game was no advertisement for the DRS especially with the Sri Lankan batsman ruled out when the ball had appeared to have 'snicked' his elbow.

 

[Daemon]

This has been bugging me since this thread was made. Mark, learn to capitalise all letters in an acronym please and thank you

awta tjb

 

[TheJediBrah]

TJB, will do my best.
Perhaps you might recall, if you watched the game, whether the 'ball tracker' actually showed the (imaginary) ball contacting the stumps, all the best, mark
That game was no advertisement for the DRS especially with the Sri Lankan batsman ruled out when the ball had appeared to have 'snicked' his elbow.

The ball was just clipping the stumps. Or possibly just missing, but within the margin of error of the technology it stays 'out' because that was the umpires original decision.

 

[sledger]

'sledger', instead of a smart arse comment why don't you confirm or not whether you actually saw the ball tracker SHOW the ball HITTING the stumps, mark

"Mark", because I have no interest in doing that. Sledger.

 

[turnstyle]

Read this as Doctors and wanted to add that Dr W.G was probably the finest Dr to play international cricket.

 

[markjohnconley]

Thank you TJB, that explains it, mark

 

[markjohnconley]

"Mark", because I have no interest in doing that. Sledger.

So you're only interested in making smart arse comments, trolling
i notice you've made 44,000 posts. are they all that useless?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Thank you TJB, that explains it, mark

No worries, mark. Have a good day.

Regards, TJB

So you're only interested in making smart arse comments, trolling
i notice you've made 44,000 posts. are they all that useless?

you catch on quick

 

[FBU]

The prediction from hawkeye that it is hitting the stumps is not reliable once distance exceeds 2.5 meters.

 

[andmark]

So you're only interested in making smart arse comments, trolling
i notice you've made 44,000 posts. are they all that useless?

Calm down mate, it was a joke.

 

[trundler]

So you're only interested in making smart arse comments, trolling
i notice you've made 44,000 posts. are they all that useless?

This is just factually true tho

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

So you're only interested in making smart arse comments, trolling
i notice you've made 44,000 posts. are they all that useless?

That's Sledger in his element