***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[marc71178]

Hotspot as it is, imho, is a good tool. Combined with snickometer I think it's a very good tool to have as part of UDRS.

Except it's not going to be combined with snicko so it becomes considerably less useful.

 

[marc71178]

a mistake technology cannot rectify. in other words, an inherent mistake,

Yes, a mistake of hotspot (which is the technology that you're trumpeting as being all but flawless)

 

[Cevno]

1. It might not be based on speculation, but the technology is far more error prone than HawkEye. It's also prone to human error.

2. What?

And this is based on?

Obviously if there are any errors with the Hotspot then they are gonna be pretty clear and in black and white ,while if there are any errors with the speculative part of Hawkeye it is all down to Conjecture to an extent because ultimately both ways it is speculation.
Even Tony Greig said yesterday that stopping the point of impact when a ball rolls along a pad can sometimes be a problem with the Hawkeye.


Having said that Hotspot will only be used for conclusive decisions with stump microphones backing it ,not iffy 1% pitched outside and inside decisions like the Hawkeye . I am fine if Hawkeye is used for such clear decisions too,but not the marginal ones. Infact except the predictive path ,Virtual eye's better.

 

[Cevno]

Hot Spot's a very, very useful piece of tech so long as you bear in mind its limitations - i.e. you can use it to prove an edge, but not disprove one.

True.
If it is used properly it is a useful tool ,same with Virtual eye and Hawkeye.

Use it blindly and there is a problem. Need to put in clear parameters for its use.

Except it's not going to be combined with snicko so it becomes considerably less useful.

Except for the Real real thin edges, it can be combined with the high quality stump microphone that is going to be used.

In any case it is going to be used to Prove edges,more than Disprove one unless the point of impact and the sound is clear and it is certain that the hotspot is working properly in the temperatue and the point of impact was front on where it could detect it.

 

[Furball]

And this is based on?

Obviously if there are any errors with the Hotspot then they are gonna be pretty clear and in black and white ,while if there are any errors with the speculative part of Hawkeye it is all down to Conjecture to an extent because ultimately both ways it is speculation.
Even Tony Greig said yesterday that stopping the point of impact when a ball rolls along a pad can sometimes be a problem with the Hawkeye.


Having said that Hotspot will only be used for conclusive decisions with stump microphones backing it ,not iffy 1% pitched outside and inside decisions like the Hawkeye . I am fine if Hawkeye is used for such clear decisions too,but not the marginal ones. Infact except the predictive path ,Virtual eye's better.

Based on watching Test matches where HotSpot has been a part of UDRS and has failed to show edges.

 

[Cevno]

Based on watching Test matches where HotSpot has been a part of UDRS and has failed to show edges.

So ,the original decision stands in that case as Hotspot can't really be relied upon to disprove a edge ,specially in marginal calls.

You would have to rely on the slow motion replay to see whether there is gap between bat and ball and also the stump microphones.
At most in case the point of impact (that could be there if there is a edge) is certain ,and there is nothing the stump microphone is detecting and it is front on then Hawkeye can be used as final piece of evidence not the first and foremost one.

As i said i don't want both technologies used for Marginal calls when there is no certainty.

 

[Spark]

I've seen plenty of thin edges not show up on hotspot. Moral: Thin edges don't always show up on hotspot, shock horror.

 

[Spikey]

and of course inside edges are also mostly not seen due to the body getting in the way

 

[Cevno]

Hotspot can't be used to disprove marginal edges tbh.
It is more likely to be used to prove edges than disprove them on a standalone basis. Don't know what is not clear?

Fine with Ball tracking too as long as they are not used for Marginal calls like 52% clipping the stumps or not etc.. or not as it's accuracy is not that certain.

 

[Bun]

Can you explain the bolded bit.

The fact is snicko, takes too long to use and would slow the game down, so until the software can be improved and speeded up, I can't see how they can be used together.
But the fact is, as we have seen, not all edges appear on hotspot and as we've seen in this last test series, the umpire gave a edge off sound, when hotspot failed to show anything. I actually do agree with you, that in a ideal world , that snicko and hotspot together are perfect because Snicko covers hotspots back, if you will.
I've sat and watched on SKY tv a few times, as they show the hotspot, when a batsman, has thought to have edged the ball and there's no white spot showing, so not out is given, then 5 minutes or so after, when Snicko has finally come up, to reveal that the batsman's edged it.

I must admit I was under the impression that snick was also made mandatory as part of hotspot, but I realise that's not the case.

however, news that high fid stump mics will be used as aid in decision making alongwith hotspot certainly enhances it's utility.

till the time snicko can be made real time, i 'd think the enhanced microphone should do it.

 

[Bun]

I'm surprised you don't have a problem with hot spot since it does get things wrong.

atleast it is a start we are able to conclusively get an idea of it's effectiveness, unlike hawkeye's predictive path.

hotspot plus hd stump mics imho should do the job well...

 

[Howe_zat]

"How-marginal-is-marginal" is obviously debatable, but I'd say 52% hitting is pretty clearly out.

 

[Bun]

1. It might not be based on speculation, but the technology is far more error prone than HawkEye. It's also prone to human error.

2. What?

1. do you realise that effectiveness of hawkeye isn't conclusively measurable when it comes to it's predictive path technology? even if take into consideration what the makers have claimed, the range of error is too high imho for it to be a significant value add over existing structure. in other words, getting two competent umpires out there should solve most of issues that hawkeye claim to address.

2. read my reply to prince wes.

 

[Bun]

Except it's not going to be combined with snicko so it becomes considerably less useful.

however fortified with heavy duty stump mics, shouldn't be that a big rpoblem.

 

[Cevno]

"How-marginal-is-marginal" is obviously debatable, but I'd say 52% hitting is pretty clearly out.

Depends i guess how convinced about it's speculative accuracy you are. 52% is marginal for me(as the accuracy is not that much there ) and works the other way round when 51% of the ball is not hitting the stumps too.

Then there is also the question of 52% of the ball pitching inside or outside of leg stump,and 51 % of the ball hitting inside or outside of leg.

 

[Bun]

And this is based on?

Obviously if there are any errors with the Hotspot then they are gonna be pretty clear and in black and white ,while if there are any errors with the speculative part of Hawkeye it is all down to Conjecture to an extent because ultimately both ways it is speculation.
Even Tony Greig said yesterday that stopping the point of impact when a ball rolls along a pad can sometimes be a problem with the Hawkeye.


Having said that Hotspot will only be used for conclusive decisions with stump microphones backing it ,not iffy 1% pitched outside and inside decisions like the Hawkeye . I am fine if Hawkeye is used for such clear decisions too,but not the marginal ones. Infact except the predictive path ,Virtual eye's better.

good post.

it's a catch 22 situation when people refer to predictive technology of hawkeye as better than naked eye when the same is not comparable to an actual event and in the end a projection. further hilarious when they justify it by saying repeated hawkeye replayes convinced them of the correctness of it (which is again perception of the same despised naked eye and human brain)

not to mention the significant manual intervention involved even in tracking the pitching and interception.....

 

[Cevno]

^^^^^^^^^^^
Something like only to be used when the ball is hitting some part of the middle stump and to a certain height ,would be much better.

 

[GotSpin]

The "system itself" doesn't make mistakes. It doesn't think. It shows what it shows, and then that has to be interpreted correctly. Occasionally it isn't.

The system includes the guidelines which have been constructed that dictate the way in which information is interpreted by officials

 

[LegionOfBrad]

Has there been any clarification on the pitching outside leg stump issue?

 

[G.I.Joe]

I don't really understand the whole point. Virtualeye was used throughout the Ashes as the tool for determining LBWs. I actually thought it was a lot better than Hawkeye, as it used more frames per second, so it seemed to provide more accuracy.

The point is that Virtualeye says they won't provide the trajectory of the ball beyond a certain point (I don't know what point, probably the point of impact?). If Virtualeye admits to that limitation despite providing more accuracy as you say, what does that say about Hawkeye's claims of accuracy in projections with a less accurate system?