***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[honestbharani]

How many bad decisions has DRS corrected?

I am not against DRS.. and from that interview, neither is Kallis. All we are saying is, lets use the ball tracking to show where it pitched and where it hit and then allow the guessing to the 3rd umpire... That is ALL we are saying.

 

[honestbharani]

Honestly have no clue what your point is regarding umpiring in lower levels of cricket?

"DRS shouldn't be employed 'cos they don't have it on village greens." Is that it the point? I hope not

The point is simple.. HOw is hawkeye assumed to be more accurate than an umpire's judgement on a LBW which is a GUESS? Let's see the hawkeye of every ball that is bowled, stop it a couple of yards after pitching and have hawk eye predict where it would go and see where it actually went. I know this is how they were SUPPOSED to have tested it but I don't see any hard evidence of it. IF the technology is so right, then show it off with actual proof.


For a group who keep asserting technology PROVES people are out, there is sure very little proof of how right hawkeye really is with balls that actually do have an actual path to be predicted against..

 

[Flem274*]

Technology IS NOT PROVEN to be better than humans in processing tracked information and making accurate assumptions and likely guesses

One uses mathematics, the other uses this.

Number four is especially important. It might even explain why the whole wicket off a no ball thing is becoming increasingly apparent, since the umpire can't fully concentrate on the delivery and the bowlers foot.

 

[Scaly piscine]

How exactly can you prove a prediction wrong? It is a question of what people's mind thinks would likely have happened Vs what technology thinks would likely have happened... And the guys who played the game at a million levels higher than you even think you did, are saying they don't think it is making the most likely guesses... Of course, you know better than the folks who play at the highest level possible for a living...

What they're doing for a living is irrelevant, because they know no more about Hawkeye or equivalent than anyone on this forum. Kallis should be embarrassed at his comments when he can't even be bothered to go and find out about the system.

On one hand you have Shrek quoting random percentages off the top of his head - the same one that has hairs implanted into it after years of scientific research so he could look less like a tit. On the other you have scientists who've been doing this for years and the fact that they've got such a system in place at all should tell you they know what they're doing.

Now who am I going to back? I'm amazed at people can even debate this.

This is scientifically researched. If you want to question this on a scientific level then by all means. But you're just talking complete **** like Kallis. Making it up as you go along. How the hell you can go on like you or him know more about this than the scientists who developed it is unbelievable. It's this sort of thinking that means we get people going to a witch doctor instead of a medical scientist. It's an argument of blind faith against science. For whatever reason something in your head tells you to be perverse just for the hell of it.

 

[G.I.Joe]

HawkEye's still more accurate than your eyesight though...

The amount of time you spend in the bathroom, it's certainly a whole lot better than your eyesight, morgie.

 

[hazsa19]

What they're doing for a living is irrelevant, because they know no more about Hawkeye or equivalent than anyone on this forum. Kallis should be embarrassed at his comments when he can't even be bothered to go and find out about the system.

On one hand you have Shrek quoting random percentages off the top of his head - the same one that has hairs implanted into it after years of scientific research so he could look less like a tit. On the other you have scientists who've been doing this for years and the fact that they've got such a system in place at all should tell you they know what they're doing.

Now who am I going to back? I'm amazed at people can even debate this.

This is scientifically researched. If you want to question this on a scientific level then by all means. But you're just talking complete **** like Kallis. Making it up as you go along. How the hell you can go on like you or him know more about this than the scientists who developed it is unbelievable. It's this sort of thinking that means we get people going to a witch doctor instead of a medical scientist. It's an argument of blind faith against science. For whatever reason something in your head tells you to be perverse just for the hell of it.

This. So much this.

 

[hazsa19]

That's a pretty **** first paragraph, it's not what I said at all. Quite the opposite. And I don't just mean amateur cricket. How about kids playing, learning the game, moving to age grade rep teams, through to first class cricket, and then the application of a rule is completely different when they make it to the top.

Although your point regarding runouts is quite a good comparison.

I really don't see this as an issue. Professional cricket and amateur cricket was already chalk and cheese before DRS was introduced. There must be dozens of crucial differences which make the sport so different when played by professionals.

Same with most sports tbh.

 

[hazsa19]

How exactly can you prove a prediction wrong? It is a question of what people's mind thinks would likely have happened Vs what technology thinks would likely have happened... And the guys who played the game at a million levels higher than you even think you did, are saying they don't think it is making the most likely guesses... Of course, you know better than the folks who play at the highest level possible for a living...

Did you see the Saffers, including Kallis at 2nd or 3rd slip, review that decision against one of the Kiwi openers? They were appealing for a catch and it must have been 18 inches+ from the bat.

I don't know why you have so much faith in players when it comes to decisions. I don't know why you would trust players when it comes to hawk-eye over the people who developed and tested it.

 

[honestbharani]

One uses mathematics, the other uses this.

Number four is especially important. It might even explain why the whole wicket off a no ball thing is becoming increasingly apparent, since the umpire can't fully concentrate on the delivery and the bowlers foot.

LBW doesn't depend on memory.. well, it does but it is a lot more instantenous and I think the actual word you are looking for is judgement.. Technology does any judgement well?


I fully agree that the noball check or call should be with the 3rd umpire and should use some kind of automation, btw... AS I have repeatedly said here, I don't have a problem trusting the technology to show me better something that has happened.. IT is the prediction/judgement/forecast part that has me worried. Trust me, AI ain't at a level when it can take judgements and calls and predictions.. Just check the weather forecast to see what goes on. Indianapolis department has had it wrong for the whole week, for what it's worth.

 

[honestbharani]

What they're doing for a living is irrelevant, because they know no more about Hawkeye or equivalent than anyone on this forum. Kallis should be embarrassed at his comments when he can't even be bothered to go and find out about the system.

On one hand you have Shrek quoting random percentages off the top of his head - the same one that has hairs implanted into it after years of scientific research so he could look less like a tit. On the other you have scientists who've been doing this for years and the fact that they've got such a system in place at all should tell you they know what they're doing.

Now who am I going to back? I'm amazed at people can even debate this.

This is scientifically researched. If you want to question this on a scientific level then by all means. But you're just talking complete **** like Kallis. Making it up as you go along. How the hell you can go on like you or him know more about this than the scientists who developed it is unbelievable. It's this sort of thinking that means we get people going to a witch doctor instead of a medical scientist. It's an argument of blind faith against science. For whatever reason something in your head tells you to be perverse just for the hell of it.

Scientists proved what? And what am I making up as I go along? For a guy who talks as if he is the reincarnation of Einstein, show me the bloody proofs before you go on your usual rants that have no basis of facts.......



And tell me how did scientists prove that hawkeye takes into account the vagaries of the pitch and the amount of swing and seam and spin which is controlled by factors ranging from the bowlers skill, which part of the ball hits the pitch, and which part of the pitch the ball hits, air and what not... It is not really difficult to deduce because I work in a company who automate so much of their manufacturing work that it is surreal.. And I help maintain some of those programmed robots and I know the limitations of AI because I studied it in college. So before you shoot off drivel as usual, try to answer these questions. I googled for proof on the hawkeye's 95% perfection and apart from interviews and forum posts like yours, there is zilch. People will start believing when they are shown proof.

Just out of curiosity, when there is an LBW appeal off the first ball of the match, do you trust hawkeye to get the prediction right with no basis for it to form an judgement off, or a human brain? At least the umpire will know the direction of the air and likelihood of swing at that hour and how the pitch behaves generally from the previous games and (in cases of people who do their homework like Taufel) from the nets from adjacent pitches... Tell me what happens then, genius? I hate to make stupid generalizations and go off on a rant about a poster from that like you do, but otherwise this post would have been banned/edited/deleted..

 

[honestbharani]

Did you see the Saffers, including Kallis at 2nd or 3rd slip, review that decision against one of the Kiwi openers? They were appealing for a catch and it must have been 18 inches+ from the bat.

I don't know why you have so much faith in players when it comes to decisions. I don't know why you would trust players when it comes to hawk-eye over the people who developed and tested it.

lol, mate, you got me completely wrong here. I am not trusting the players to be honest when they can bend the rules a little to gain an advantage. What I mean is that when it comes to predicting and judging trajectory of a ball that was stopped on its way, I expect a trained umpire to do it better than an algorithm...

 

[wellAlbidarned]

LBW doesn't depend on memory.. well, it does but it is a lot more instantenous and I think the actual word you are looking for is judgement.. Technology does any judgement well?


I fully agree that the noball check or call should be with the 3rd umpire and should use some kind of automation, btw... AS I have repeatedly said here, I don't have a problem trusting the technology to show me better something that has happened.. IT is the prediction/judgement/forecast part that has me worried. Trust me, AI ain't at a level when it can take judgements and calls and predictions.. Just check the weather forecast to see what goes on. Indianapolis department has had it wrong for the whole week, for what it's worth.

Yes, it very much does. People's short term visual memories are pretty ****, as the whole gorilla test thing shows.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes, it very much does. People's short term visual memories are pretty ****, as the whole gorilla test thing shows.

Yes, which is why you help them with the ball tracking till point of impact.. So you are basically taking out the one questionable part of human decision making - the short term memory.. And using the more dependable part of that decision making - the judgement.

 

[honestbharani]

My point here is pretty simple.. You say it is proven that human short term memory and eyesight are far less accurate than technology. Fine, that is why in DRS you should use all of that to show "what happened".. But it is also proven that technology is dependable when it comes to making judgements... So you leave the "what would have happened from there" to the 3rd umpire... To me, it is more of a win-win situation.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

And using the more dependable part of that decision making - the judgement.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Why on earth should that be necessary though? All the tracking technology does is record the various numbers of the ball's path up until impact and use this to work out where it would've gone, thus removing any kind of possible human error. Which is the reason for having the damn system in the first place, I might add.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Scientists proved what? And what am I making up as I go along? For a guy who talks as if he is the reincarnation of Einstein, show me the bloody proofs before you go on your usual rants that have no basis of facts.......



And tell me how did scientists prove that hawkeye takes into account the vagaries of the pitch and the amount of swing and seam and spin which is controlled by factors ranging from the bowlers skill, which part of the ball hits the pitch, and which part of the pitch the ball hits, air and what not... It is not really difficult to deduce because I work in a company who automate so much of their manufacturing work that it is surreal.. And I help maintain some of those programmed robots and I know the limitations of AI because I studied it in college. So before you shoot off drivel as usual, try to answer these questions. I googled for proof on the hawkeye's 95% perfection and apart from interviews and forum posts like yours, there is zilch. People will start believing when they are shown proof.

Just out of curiosity, when there is an LBW appeal off the first ball of the match, do you trust hawkeye to get the prediction right with no basis for it to form an judgement off, or a human brain? At least the umpire will know the direction of the air and likelihood of swing at that hour and how the pitch behaves generally from the previous games and (in cases of people who do their homework like Taufel) from the nets from adjacent pitches... Tell me what happens then, genius? I hate to make stupid generalizations and go off on a rant about a poster from that like you do, but otherwise this post would have been banned/edited/deleted..

Hawkeye's 95% perfection?!? That's a total nonsense for a start. If you knew what you were talking about you would realise that. Is it 95% perfection if it gets 19 out of 20 right - competent umpiring level? Or is it the margin of error proportionate to the data? Or something else? Whatever it is I suggest you go and study the data yourself if you doubt it. That's what a scientist is supposed to do, not this blind faith crap.

Hawkeye doesn't need to have some sort of approximation of conscious thought towards seam, swing and so on. It can track the ball moving. If there was a 50mph crosswind it would track the ball moving and project the path. If the ball hits a crack half way down it can follow the path of the ball from where it bounced. Given the lbw rule it doesn't need to guess at the seam movement or spin if it hits the batsman on the full. If you asked Hawkeye to project the bath of the ball to the wicket-keeper then you'd have some errors and guesswork because in England the ball can swing well after it passes the batsman. But Hawkeye is dealing with something that is simply an extension of path it has tracked. The seam and spin has ALREADY happened. If the ball is a swinging full toss you can work out the swing and the lateral acceleration on the ball.

The only time guessing comes into it is when you have a gusty wind. That's when one of the variables changes - the variables themselves are shown by the ball moving and being tracked, the way it bounces, swings, seams etc. A gust of wind immediately after the ball hits the pad could cause a fractional difference to the direction. But that would be covered by margins of error anyway.

 

[ankitj]

I wanted to post this for a while. I do support DRS fully, but with every incident of DRS failure my conviction is somewhat lessened (it'd be surprising if it didn't, isn't it? ). I don't think anyone here is opposing the idea of DRS itself, but only debating the modalities and admissibility of some technologies.

To that, I wanted to say that this whole issue reminds of the diagnostic tests problem in conditional probability. Let's say that 90% of umpires' decisions are right and 90% of them don't need to be reviewed. If your DRS technology can get 98% of the decisions right that sounds like a significant improvement. But what if the 90% that don't get reviewed are part of the 98% (very likely if only the marginal calls get referred)? Then out of the 10 in 100 that get reviewed, 2 are incorrectly decided by DRS. That is 20% error rate on the reviews. That is obviously not good enough to inspire any confidence!

Now if we indeed tolerate 2% error rate on reviews, we want our technology to be 99.8% accurate and not 98%. The exact numbers may differ, but that shows that we need our DRS technology to be very, very precise. With each failure that comes to light, I am not convinced that the prior accuracy is close to 99.8%. May be 97-98%, but that's not good enough.

 

[honestbharani]

 

[honestbharani]

Why on earth should that be necessary though? All the tracking technology does is record the various numbers of the ball's path up until impact and use this to work out where it would've gone, thus removing any kind of possible human error. Which is the reason for having the damn system in the first place, I might add.

Can't balls move in the air more after a certain while though.. Isn't that what was called swing or spin? And isn't that why it could not believe that Shane Warne delivery that bowled Strauss?