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 102 of 125 FirstFirst ... 25292100101102103104112 ... LastLast
Results 1,516 to 1,530 of 1874
Like Tree8Likes

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

  1. #1516
    International Coach uvelocity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    seamy road
    Posts
    11,852
    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?
    going straight on - as if the ball would not spin at all

    which is advantage bowler, and agreeable to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    I just love all kinds of balls.

  2. #1517
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    41,650


    at this thread
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
    "People make me happy.. not places.. people"

    "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson

    "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn

  3. #1518
    International Captain ankitj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Hyderabad India
    Posts
    6,178
    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.
    The point is that using a 95% technology as a secondary check on a system that is 90% accurate is as good as worthless (assuming the first 90% fully coincides with the 95%).

    No production manager will use a testing system that is 95% accurate to detect errors in a production unit that is already 90% accurate. The outcome will be full or false positives and/or false negatives. A 95% accurate testing mechanism is great when the production is about 70-75% accurate. That's the point.

    EDIT: To repeat, I am not against DRS. I don't even tow the BCCI line of the system not being 100%. It doesn't have to, but it has to be significantly superior than the on-field umpires. I don't know if that is already the case.
    Last edited by ankitj; 13-03-2012 at 12:36 AM.

  4. #1519
    International Captain weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    6,140
    Quote Originally Posted by uvelocity View Post
    going straight on - as if the ball would not spin at all

    which is advantage bowler, and agreeable to me.
    I am amazed that I didn't know about this part of the LBW rule.

    This part of the rule looks rubbish to me TBH. In essence, we are saying that Warne's and Muralitharan's deliveries don't spin after pitching at all, and that all of Saeed Ajmal's stock delivery, doosra and teesra are exactly the same delivery and all are same as Mohammad Sami's pies.

    I personally think those full tosses that hit batsmen on the pads and are expected to pitch once before reaching the stumps should be given not out as a rule.

    This is not an anti-DRS point by the way, for those who don't understand.
    "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)


  5. #1520
    International Coach uvelocity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    seamy road
    Posts
    11,852
    Quote Originally Posted by weldone View Post
    This part of the rule looks rubbish to me TBH. In essence, we are saying that Warne's and Muralitharan's deliveries don't spin after pitching at all, and that all of Saeed Ajmal's stock delivery, doosra and teesra are exactly the same delivery and all are same as Mohammad Sami's pies.

    I personally think those full tosses that hit batsmen on the pads and are expected to pitch once before reaching the stumps should be given not out as a rule.
    nah disagree. Point one, for this to happen the player is going to be near the stumps, so it's likely that most deliveries would hit the wickets somewhere. If the player is charging down and hit flush the umpire will have plenty of doubt to give it not out.

    Point two is that the ump can only assume straight as to guess how much or little the ball would spin, and even which direction in some cases would be approaching impossible.

    Point three is that if the batsman is hit by a ball which hasn't even hit the ground yet, he deserves to be out.

  6. #1521
    International Captain weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    6,140
    Quote Originally Posted by uvelocity View Post
    nah disagree. Point one, for this to happen the player is going to be near the stumps, so it's likely that most deliveries would hit the wickets somewhere. If the player is charging down and hit flush the umpire will have plenty of doubt to give it not out.

    Point two is that the ump can only assume straight as to guess how much or little the ball would spin, and even which direction in some cases would be approaching impossible.

    Point three is that if the batsman is hit by a ball which hasn't even hit the ground yet, he deserves to be out.
    bolded part is precisely the reason I want such situations be automatically deemed not out

  7. #1522
    Hall of Fame Member Cevno's Avatar
    Simon Champion!
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    15,850
    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 because it shows a fancy path and all?

    The maker of Virtual eye has admitted himself that technology is still doubtful as far as predictable path is concerned and can't pick up many things that a onfield umpire can. I guess you know better than him based on nothing though.

    Also, the ICC after reversing it's earlier decision on making UDRS mandatory said it will get the technology testes by a independent evaluator to see if it is worth persisting with. Something which so bewilderingly hadn't done before and relied foolishly just on what the makers website did i presume.

    On a side note, the companies involved did not allow ICC officials to get access to the cameras or the software at any point under the terms of contract earlier either, even to inspect .
    Last edited by Cevno; 13-03-2012 at 12:35 AM.

  8. #1523
    International Coach uvelocity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    seamy road
    Posts
    11,852
    Quote Originally Posted by weldone View Post
    bolded part is precisely the reason I want such situations be automatically deemed not out
    so the batsman can kick every ball away as long as it doesnt bounce yet. socket. nice.

  9. #1524
    International Captain wellAlbidarned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    away from the palms
    Posts
    6,400
    Quote Originally Posted by weldone View Post
    I am amazed that I didn't know about this part of the LBW rule.

    This part of the rule looks rubbish to me TBH. In essence, we are saying that Warne's and Muralitharan's deliveries don't spin after pitching at all, and that all of Saeed Ajmal's stock delivery, doosra and teesra are exactly the same delivery and all are same as Mohammad Sami's pies.

    I personally think those full tosses that hit batsmen on the pads and are expected to pitch once before reaching the stumps should be given not out as a rule.

    This is not an anti-DRS point by the way, for those who don't understand.
    Seriously, if you miss a slow full toss dead in front of the stumps then you deserve to be sent packing.
    Exit pursuing a beer

  10. #1525
    International Captain weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    6,140
    Quote Originally Posted by uvelocity View Post
    so the batsman can kick every ball away as long as it doesnt bounce yet. socket. nice.
    No, only the deliveries that don't bounce yet and are expected to bounce before reaching the stumps...

  11. #1526
    Hall of Fame Member Cevno's Avatar
    Simon Champion!
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    15,850
    Quote Originally Posted by 8ankitj View Post
    The point is that using a 95% technology as a secondary mechanism to a system that is 90% accurate is as good as worthless (assuming the first 90% fully coincides with the 95%).

    No production manager will use a testing system that is 95% accurate to detect errors in a production unit that is already 90% accurate. The outcome will be full or false positives and/or false negatives. A 95% accurate testing mechanism is great when the production is about 70-75% accurate. That's the point.

    EDIT: To repeat, I am not against DRS. I don't even tow the BCCI line of the system not being 100%. It doesn't have to, but it has to be significantly superior than the on-field umpires. I don't know if that is already the case.
    Yeah, agreed. And there is nothing to prove concretely either way right now.

    Infact, there is even doubt as to if it is more accurate than on field umpires vis a vis only predictive path is concerned.(Not the graphic before that).

  12. #1527
    International Captain weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    6,140
    Quote Originally Posted by wellAlbidarned View Post
    Seriously, if you miss a slow full toss dead in front of the stumps then you deserve to be sent packing.
    So a batsman should be out for padding up an attempted legspinner from Shane Warne that would have pitched on off and missed the off-stump by a mile?

  13. #1528
    International Captain wellAlbidarned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    away from the palms
    Posts
    6,400
    Quote Originally Posted by weldone View Post
    So a batsman should be out for padding up an attempted legspinner from Shane Warne that would have pitched on off and missed the off-stump by a mile?
    ...why the **** would a batsman pad up to a full toss in front of off?
    Last edited by wellAlbidarned; 13-03-2012 at 12:45 AM.

  14. #1529
    Hall of Fame Member Cevno's Avatar
    Simon Champion!
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    15,850
    Quote Originally Posted by weldone View Post
    No, only the deliveries that don't bounce yet and are expected to bounce before reaching the stumps...
    That only confuses the rule further though. Not only has the umpire to judge where the ball will go after pitching (doosra,flipper,teesra etc..), he will also have to judge whether the ball was bouncing or not.

  15. #1530
    International Captain weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    6,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Cevno View Post
    That only confuses the rule further though. Not only has the umpire to judge where the ball will go after pitching (doosra,flipper,teesra etc..), he will also have to judge whether the ball was bouncing or not.
    He doesn't have to do the bolded part, you aren't reading my posts properly..



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
  •