View Poll Results: UDRS?

Voters
135. You may not vote on this poll
  • In favour

    112 82.96%
  • Opposed

    13 9.63%
  • BCCI is the best organisation out

    10 7.41%
Page 101 of 125 FirstFirst ... 519199100101102103111 ... LastLast
Results 1,501 to 1,515 of 1874
Like Tree8Likes

Thread: ***Official*** DRS discussion thread

  1. #1501
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani View Post
    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?
    I believe the explanation was that it wasn't calibrated for that level of spin.
    National Scrabble Champion 2009, 8th, 11th and 5th in 2009/2011/2013 World Championships, gold medal (team) at Causeway, 2011 Masters Champion
    Australia’s Darren Lehmann is a ‘blatant loser’ insists Stuart Broad
    Countdown Series 57 Champion
    King of the Arcade
    Reply from mods to my prank bans in public:
    Reply from mods to my prank bans in private:


    MSN - evil_budgie @ hotmail.co.uk

  2. #1502
    International Captain weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    6,045
    Quote Originally Posted by 8ankitj View Post
    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.
    Interesting point
    "I want to raise my hand and say one thing. Those who complain about my love for the game or commitment to the game are clueless. These are the only 2 areas where I give myself 100 out of 100."
    - Sachin Tendulkar, as told in an interview published in Bengali newspaper Anandabazar Patrika after his 100th International century (translated by weldone)

  3. #1503
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Scaly piscine View Post
    I believe the explanation was that it wasn't calibrated for that level of spin.
    Maybe.. but how many times have seen balls do a lot more, sometimes after passing the batsman, sometimes just when it nears the bat after pitching well short... I just have a hard time believing any software can consider that many variants and come up with definitive conclusions (that is, within 90% of success).. It is not blind faith. I work in these areas everyday and I see how often they get it wrong and how much improvements are attempted. Today everyone of these machines are controlled by human judgement. They do the automated tasks, they collect the data and they show us reports, but it is us humans who judge what they mean and come up with predictions on what would happen from there..

    Quote Originally Posted by Scaly piscine View Post
    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.

    Again, you are assuming that the ball will never move more than what it moved at impact. An umpire can judge that, hawkeye cannot. And there are 3 or 4 people involved who work on Hawkeye and if and when they get it wrong, the human error there is gonna cause hell of a lot more damage than any umpire's error has. And I understand they do not stop the hawkeye's tracking at some random point and then use the predictive path to compare it on a match to match basis. Which means, all the experimentation and results provided can be of no use, if they had been so much as a 1mm displacement of one of their 6 tracking cameras, which is perfectly possible. And from reading up on the Hawkeye guy's PDF where he has shared his mail communications with Mickey Arthur and some screengrabs, it is even more obvious that they NEVER provide for exaggerated deviations at any point after pitching. They track the ball till impact and extrapolate from there.
    We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.
    A cricket supporter forever

    Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.


    Check out this awesome e-fed:

    PWE Efed

  4. #1504
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,734
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani View Post
    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?
    Yes, and obviously the technology has not been updated in the last 6 and a half years at all
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.


  5. #1505
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,734
    Quote Originally Posted by weldone View Post
    Interesting point
    And ultimately still a load of ****.

    98% is still better than 90% ffs.

  6. #1506
    International Captain ankitj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Hyderabad India
    Posts
    6,093
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178 View Post
    And ultimately still a load of ****.

    98% is still better than 90% ffs.
    Given a decision by DRS, there is 20% chance that it was incorrect!

    If that doesn't drive home the point, consider a 90% vs 95% situation. 95% is still better than 90%?? What of the fact that only 50% of the decisions by the technology are accurate? You could just toss the coin rather than use the 95% accurate technology.
    Last edited by ankitj; 12-03-2012 at 12:47 PM.

  7. #1507
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    20,099
    Technology doesn't make mistakes ffs. And if the accuracy was as low as 50%, then it wouldn't be getting used.

    You're building a straw man argument here.

    edit: and ironically, it will be through the use of technology that you declare a decision to be incorrect.

  8. #1508
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,695
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178 View Post
    Yes, and obviously the technology has not been updated in the last 6 and a half years at all
    or maybe you just don't read what is posted and just pull out the rolleyes..

  9. #1509
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,695
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    Technology doesn't make mistakes ffs. And if the accuracy was as low as 50%, then it wouldn't be getting used.

    You're building a straw man argument here.

    edit: and ironically, it will be through the use of technology that you declare a decision to be incorrect.




    Just wrong on so many levels I am not even gonna bother..

  10. #1510
    International Captain wellAlbidarned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    away from the palms
    Posts
    6,358
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani View Post
    Again, you are assuming that the ball will never move more than what it moved at impact. An umpire can judge that, hawkeye cannot. And there are 3 or 4 people involved who work on Hawkeye and if and when they get it wrong, the human error there is gonna cause hell of a lot more damage than any umpire's error has. And I understand they do not stop the hawkeye's tracking at some random point and then use the predictive path to compare it on a match to match basis. Which means, all the experimentation and results provided can be of no use, if they had been so much as a 1mm displacement of one of their 6 tracking cameras, which is perfectly possible. And from reading up on the Hawkeye guy's PDF where he has shared his mail communications with Mickey Arthur and some screengrabs, it is even more obvious that they NEVER provide for exaggerated deviations at any point after pitching. They track the ball till impact and extrapolate from there.
    The LBW law states that an umpire is supposed to assume that the ball will travel straight on from where the ball strikes the batsman. If he's trying to predict the swing or spin then that's poor umpiring.
    Exit pursuing a beer

  11. #1511
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,695
    Quote Originally Posted by wellAlbidarned View Post
    The LBW law states that an umpire is supposed to assume that the ball will travel straight on from where the ball strikes the batsman. If he's trying to predict the swing or spin then that's poor umpiring.
    Really? That is what the LBW law says?


    Quote Originally Posted by MCC
    Law 36: Leg before wicket (LBW). If the ball hits the batsman without first hitting the bat, but would have hit the wicket if the batsman was not there, and the ball does not pitch on the leg side of the wicket, the batsman will be out. However, if the ball strikes the batsman outside the line of the off-stump, and the batsman was attempting to play a stroke, he is not out.

    Strangely enough, nothing mentioned about umpires having to assume the ball would continue straight on...

  12. #1512
    International Captain weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    6,045
    A genuine question here: What if a full toss from a spinner hits a batsman on the front-foot by the way? Assuming the ball was supposed to pitch before reaching the wicket, how is the DRS going to review the decision?

  13. #1513
    International Captain ankitj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Hyderabad India
    Posts
    6,093
    2.5m rule comes into play?

  14. #1514
    International Captain wellAlbidarned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    away from the palms
    Posts
    6,358
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani View Post
    Really? That is what the LBW law says?





    Strangely enough, nothing mentioned about umpires having to assume the ball would continue straight on...
    Quote Originally Posted by Lords official website
    2. Interception of the ball
    (a) In assessing points (c), (d) and (e) in 1 above, only the first interception is to be considered.
    (b) In assessing point (e) in 1 above, it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not.
    z

  15. #1515
    International Captain wellAlbidarned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    away from the palms
    Posts
    6,358
    Quote Originally Posted by weldone View Post
    A genuine question here: What if a full toss from a spinner hits a batsman on the front-foot by the way? Assuming the ball was supposed to pitch before reaching the wicket, how is the DRS going to review the decision?
    The DRS assumes that the ball would travel straight on from it's initial path with no deviation as the LBW law states. There's absolutely no chance of the ball bouncing over the stumps, if that's what you mean.
    Last edited by wellAlbidarned; 12-03-2012 at 11:36 PM.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. CricSim/PlanetCricket Discussion etc
    By ripper868 in forum Testing Forum
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 17-08-2010, 06:15 PM
  2. Sri Lanka Thread
    By chaminda_00 in forum 2009 ICC World Twenty20
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-05-2009, 05:29 AM
  3. Trade Discussion Thread
    By Simon in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 137
    Last Post: 15-04-2009, 03:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •