**Official** New Zealand in Australia 2015

[Spark]

My philosophies on the DRS/LBWs are vague, I'm starting to realise that...as you can probably pick up I'm just really bemused by the role of an on-field umpire when technology is called for. It seems to me like we've got the technology, but our decision will be partly guided by the human whose decision we're investigating. To me if you've got technology, it's absolute - it's not hinging on whether a guy on-field said yay or nay. You're saying you have the technology to do a better job than the naked eye but kinda you haven't.

And I know that if you just made it anything that is clipping or hitting would lead to batsmen having nightmares. And yeah it would probably make things even more farcical than they are now. That's why I propose less than half the ball= not out at every instance. I could explain that to a neutral. Basically we're saying we're not yet living in a perfect AI society where robots can hold perfect conversations with us, drive our cars and predict exactly where a cricket ball is going to hit.

Yeah but the thing is you're using that imperfect AI argument to overturn an onfield decision. You're not just ignoring the computer's prediction, you're actually actively using the computer's prediction to force its exact opposite conclusion. It's a really, really, really weird argument.

I mean I don't think it's that odd to have an umpire's call mechanism. We're just saying we'll only overturn the onfield decision when we're absolute "sure" where we've pre-defined "surety" using pre-set physical parameters.

 

[SteveNZ]

Because if they're going to have margins of errors for the ball clipping the stumps and saying there's a chance it could have just missed, then they should go the other way too: the ball that just missed could actually be clipping.

I hear you, but my take on it is to make the margin of error half the ball. Anything past that and we have a clear guideline as to what is not out. No one other than knuckle-dragging bowlers like to see balls clipping leg given out (ie me)

 

[SteveNZ]

Yeah but the thing is you're using that imperfect AI argument to overturn an onfield decision. You're not just ignoring the computer's prediction, you're actually actively using the computer's prediction to force its exact opposite conclusion. It's a really, really, really weird argument.

One made by a human, from 22 yards, at times with a guy bowling 150 clicks, with all manner of auxiliary things that can affect his decision making. DRS doesn't have bias, whether the mrs is angry at him, home crowds, fly in his peripheral, nervousness etc. So whilst the technology is not perfect I'm saying I'm prepared to go with it to that degree - over half a ball hitting - because by instituting the technology you're saying it's superior so you should choose its conclusion over the human - even if it is not 100% correct. I think that stands to reason that I'm desiring technology to be the deciding factor, but I am putting parametres on the ball clipping due to lack of 100% accuracy and the fact our game just doesn't value an lbw that is clipping.

 

[Spark]

One made by a human, from 22 yards, at times with a guy bowling 150 clicks, with all manner of auxiliary things that can affect his decision making. DRS doesn't have bias, whether the mrs is angry at him, home crowds, fly in his peripheral, nervousness etc. So whilst the technology is not perfect I'm saying I'm prepared to go with it to that degree - over half a ball hitting - because by instituting the technology you're saying it's superior so you should choose its conclusion over the human - even if it is not 100% correct. I think that stands to reason that I'm desiring technology to be the deciding factor, but I am putting parametres on the ball clipping due to lack of 100% accuracy and the fact our game just doesn't value an lbw that is clipping.

Where in the LBW law does it say that deliveries predicted to be only clipping are to be given not out? Because that is literally what you are saying here.

Honestly I don't know why this debate has started over this in the first place. Umpire's call has upheld far, far more marginal decisions -- like, nicking the absolute top corner of leg stump marginal -- than this one. But if batsmen can be bowled off such balls, then they should in theory be at least allowed to be given out LBW if the umpire thinks it's going to hit.

 

[Prince EWS]

Where in the LBW law does it say that deliveries predicted to be only clipping are to be given not out? Because that is literally what you are saying here.

Perhaps we could actually change the lbw law to that rather than having a wink and a nudge with our DRS protocols.

 

[Spark]

Perhaps we could actually change the lbw law to that rather than having a wink and a nudge with our DRS protocols.

Yeah perhaps, though that's an enormous can of worms (I would personally look at broadening the scope of the not-offering-a-shot exception first, and make it so the only consideration the umpire should make is whether it'll hit or not, regardless of where it pitched or hit etc etc).

But I just don't really understand this argument at all. It seems to be enforcing the absolute supremacy of technology whilst at the same time really limiting the scope of said technology but in a really skewed and blunt sort of way.

 

[SteveNZ]

Where in the LBW law does it say that deliveries predicted to be only clipping are to be given not out? Because that is literally what you are saying here.

Honestly I don't know why this debate has started over this in the first place. Umpire's call has upheld far, far more marginal decisions -- like, nicking the absolute top corner of leg stump marginal -- than this one. But if batsmen can be bowled off such balls, then they should in theory be at least allowed to be given out LBW if the umpire thinks it's going to hit.

It doesn't say that. I'm advocating that. What PEWS said is exactly what I'm referring to. Forget whether Mr Umpire has feelings and will lose sleep if his decision is overturned, take all conjecture out of what a human's input is into it and say anything on DRS that is clipping - ie half a ball or less - is not out regardless of on-field call. Then it's consistent, not dependent on who the umpire was. With technology I see no need to concern yourself with who the umpire is, only what technology says - which you've brought in because you deem it to be the best decision maker, not the best decision aider.

The debate started today because I am a NZ fan whose hopes (rain apart) went with Kane. If it was Trent Boult I'd probably have buggered off and done something more constructive with my time. But I've held the views I'm sharing for a long time.

 

[cnerd123]

It seems far more intuitive to me to trust the on-field umpire for marginal calls, than to arbitrarily demand all marginal calls go one way.

 

[SteveNZ]

Yeah perhaps, though that's an enormous can of worms (I would personally look at broadening the scope of the not-offering-a-shot exception first, and make it so the only consideration the umpire should make is whether it'll hit or not, regardless of where it pitched or hit etc etc).

But I just don't really understand this argument at all. It seems to be enforcing the absolute supremacy of technology whilst at the same time really limiting the scope of said technology but in a really skewed and blunt sort of way.

I agree with the bolded, and I'm not limiting the scope - merely acknowledging the slight fallibility of technology whilst at the same time weighing it up against human decision making and knowing it's the stronger option.

I just feel like if you came in tomorrow and said everything that is clipping with less than half a ball is blanketed as not out, that no one could care but the odd umpire. It'd be accepted more strongly (at a guess) than the current 'out if he gave it out, not if he didn't'.

 

[Spark]

Right, but then you are actually arguing for a fundamentally different set of laws of cricket at the international level compared to the FC, grade and club level (and those parts of the international schedule without DRS!). Because umpires have a hard enough time adjudicating the current law, let alone trying to gauge a far more complex and nuanced law (how are you meant to tell if only half of a rapidly travelling object is going to hit another object that you can't see?)

So no thanks.

 

[cnerd123]

Right, but then you are actually arguing for a fundamentally different set of laws of cricket at the international level compared to the FC, grade and club level (and those parts of the international schedule without DRS!).

Which, no thanks.

Not to mention a fundamentally different laws for matches featuring India vs those that don't.

 

[Spark]

Not to mention a fundamentally different laws for matches featuring India vs those that don't.

Well, yes, that was what I meant by the bracketed bit

 

[Spark]

It seems far more intuitive to me to trust the on-field umpire for marginal calls, than to arbitrarily demand all marginal calls go one way.

Yep. Marginal means you'll win some, you'll lose some. It's sport, not mathematics. It happens.

 

[SteveNZ]

Right, but then you are actually arguing for a fundamentally different set of laws of cricket at the international level compared to the FC, grade and club level (and those parts of the international schedule without DRS!). Because umpires have a hard enough time adjudicating the current law, let alone trying to gauge a far more complex and nuanced law (how are you meant to tell if only half of a rapidly travelling object is going to hit another object that you can't see?)

So no thanks.

I mean, that already exists in matches with and without DRS - it is a fundamentally different set of rules when you're using tactical referrals etc. I have no issue with a fundamentally different set of rules, you do. That's cool. India's BS 'it's our bat and ball, and we'll go home if we don't like it' attitude shouldn't be considered.

I don't see how umpires have to adjudicate one bit different. They see a potential dismissal, they deem it out or not out - just as they did 100 years ago. Then the guy upstairs rules as I've said.

I know my way isn't likely to see the light of day and you're entitled to think it's bunkum. All part of the fun of a vague system, I guess? For the record, I have absolutely no issue with the 'you win some, you lose some' theory. I'd happily go without DRS, India hasn't burnt to the ground as a result of missing out on the fun.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It doesn't say that. I'm advocating that. What PEWS said is exactly what I'm referring to. Forget whether Mr Umpire has feelings and will lose sleep if his decision is overturned, take all conjecture out of what a human's input is into it and say anything on DRS that is clipping - ie half a ball or less - is not out regardless of on-field call. Then it's consistent, not dependent on who the umpire was. With technology I see no need to concern yourself with who the umpire is, only what technology says - which you've brought in because you deem it to be the best decision maker, not the best decision aider.

The debate started today because I am a NZ fan whose hopes (rain apart) went with Kane. If it was Trent Boult I'd probably have buggered off and done something more constructive with my time. But I've held the views I'm sharing for a long time.

That's one of the stupidest things I've heard anyone say on this forum

- Ball's hitting the stumps, let's make it always not out

Surely you're trolling

 

[SteveNZ]

That's one of the stupidest things I've heard anyone say on this forum

- Ball's hitting the stumps, let's make it always not out

Surely you're trolling

Thanks for your input. It's not a hard concept to follow and I explained it.

Anyway this is a Test thread not an lbw laws thread, even if it is raining.

 

[cnerd123]

I think NZ could actually bat out a whole day with 7 wickets in hand.

Not likely but it is very possible.

 

[vandem]

That's one of the stupidest things I've heard anyone say on this forum

- Ball's hitting the stumps, let's make it always not out

Surely you're trolling

Is there a phrase for trolling by making a trolling accusation?


"Take all conjecture out of what a human's input is into it and say anything on DRS that is clipping - ie half a ball or less - is not out regardless of on-field call" ...

... is exactly what the radio co-commentator (Chris Rogers? Dirk Nannes? not sure which one) thought the rule should be, during discussion after the Williamson dismissal. But hey, they are just an ex-international cricketer so what would they know ...

 

[SteveNZ]

Is there a phrase for trolling by making a trolling accusation?


"Take all conjecture out of what a human's input is into it and say anything on DRS that is clipping - ie half a ball or less - is not out regardless of on-field call" ...

... is exactly what the radio co-commentator (Chris Rogers? Dirk Nannes? not sure which one) thought the rule should be, during discussion after the Williamson dismissal.

Well that's my work done.

 

[jcas0167]

That's one of the stupidest things I've heard anyone say on this forum

- Ball's hitting the stumps, let's make it always not out

Surely you're trolling

I think his argument there is that if DRS shows it is clipping by half a ball or less there is an element of doubt so decision should favour the batsmen.

Whether those are always given not-out, or always given out, it seems preferable to the umpires call randomness.