-
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.
Ian Chappell's proposed changed to the lbw law
- Thread starter iPankajKhanna
- Start date
cnerd123
likes this
What you've just described is a scenario all umpires will tell you doesn't exist
IE - they dont factor how many reviews are left when making their decision
If they do, that's bad umpiring, and nothing to do with the DRS system
Showing 50% of the ball hitting the stump on screen is just a way to illustrate the error margin in the system graphically. It doesn't actually mean that 50% of the ball is hitting the stumps. It's meant to represent that there is a 50/50 chance of the ball hitting the stump or not. At that point, the system is no more accurate at predicting if the ball would have hit the stump than a coin toss. Hence deferring back to the onfield umpire's decision
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think SteveNZ's contention is that you just ignore any margin of error and just assume the technology is 100% accurate, even if you know it's not
I would be very surprised if the margin of error was that high. That's hugely inaccurate.
Last edited:
Jedi had it - I'm happy to assume the technology is right, and even if it isn't 100% right it still represents a greater accuracy than the naked eye. If there's a clear and obvious error, then obviously there is a third umpire there to correct it.
There's a very clear guideline within what I'm proposing. 50% or more of the ball hitting, out. Less than, not out. Irrelevant of what the umpire says. And stay with the current provisions around retaining reviews if the ball is shown to be hitting some part of the stumps. There's still a place for the umpire, they're still important. They still need to make decisions because teams will lose their reviews. If you review something that isn't hitting at all or is hitting completely outside the line, or the batsman hits it, you deservedly lose a review. Take Martin Guptill in the World Cup final. Stupid review, cost his mate Ross Taylor his wicket. I still see that as a good fit for the game.
Umpires may well tell me that, but it's happened before. Not all of them may. In fact very few may. But it forms a part of human nature that it might, even subconsciously, influence their on-field decision. I agree it's bad umpiring, and it's very rare, but my system eliminates it. But more importantly it eliminates the silly system of allowing human influence to influence the superior decision making of technology, when it doesn't need to.
Even if this 50% situation you're talking about is true, my system is still better than what it is currently. We just assume it's 100% accurate because it produces more accurate decisions than a human. And that is unquestionable.
cnerd123
likes this
Actually i don't think it has been proven yet that ball tracking is 100% accurate, or even more accurate, in predicting LBWs? Like, it gets more accurate the closer the impact is to the stumps, and more inaccurate the further away the impact happens, and there have been incidents in the past where the ball tracking looks wrong (Lyon to Stokes in that last wicket runchase an example of that).
There was some discussion about this here before, and iirc we tried to look for some experimental data about this but couldn't find any?
There was some discussion about this here before, and iirc we tried to look for some experimental data about this but couldn't find any?
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
You mean more accurate than umpires? There's no way that it isn't a lot more accurate that umpires
This is my point.
***** used the Lyon to Stokes example, suggesting ball tracking got it wrong. Worth remembering that if ***** thinks it was hitting, then the umpire got it wrong too.
cnerd123
likes this
I actually didn't think it was hitting. No one watching live in the thread did. We all lol'd when the ball tracking came up.
In theory it should be more accurate, but the accuracy is variable on conditions, technology available at the ground for that particular game, and ofc where the impact happens. Its not uniformly accurate, and what I remember is that there isn't any published study out there that can put a number to it's level of accuracy and how superior it is, if at all, to Elite umpires (someone check that plz)
So it's not as straightforward as youre making it sounds
Currently in cricket, when the technology does give us a grey area -and it happens a lot - we end up deferring to human judgement anyways. Despite having reviews available we still have borderline catch and runout decisions, despite having snicko and hotspot on hand, some edge decisions are hard to make. Hawkeye isnt perfect, and whenever it isn't able to give us a definite answer, the decision should fall to the Umpire. An experienced, trained individual with a human brain and eyes on the field. They're best placed to make these calls. I don't think that should ever be changed.
In theory it should be more accurate, but the accuracy is variable on conditions, technology available at the ground for that particular game, and ofc where the impact happens. Its not uniformly accurate, and what I remember is that there isn't any published study out there that can put a number to it's level of accuracy and how superior it is, if at all, to Elite umpires (someone check that plz)
So it's not as straightforward as youre making it sounds
Currently in cricket, when the technology does give us a grey area -and it happens a lot - we end up deferring to human judgement anyways. Despite having reviews available we still have borderline catch and runout decisions, despite having snicko and hotspot on hand, some edge decisions are hard to make. Hawkeye isnt perfect, and whenever it isn't able to give us a definite answer, the decision should fall to the Umpire. An experienced, trained individual with a human brain and eyes on the field. They're best placed to make these calls. I don't think that should ever be changed.
Last edited:
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ball tracking has definitely had a few massive stuff ups, usually when there has been multiple points of impact close to each other. Even taking those into account actual umpires have 100x more massive stuff ups.
Yep. One day in the future, we'll have 100% automated cars that drive themselves. There will be the odd occasion where someone dies or is seriously injured because of an issue in this automation. However, there will be far less deaths than the transport system as it currently exists. It's natural to bemoan the issues in the technology when they come up, but it's still the superior option. And as in this analogy, the driver will still be able to step in if things are clearly wrong.