***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[Cevno]

Originally Posted by wellAlbidarned

You don't use it for every single decision, no-one's saying that umpires are wrong 100% of the time.

The logic your using is still all wrong though on more than one level.

[Flem274*]

Technology sees better than your eyes. There's scientific literature on this iirc. If true, it's the end of the discussion.

[8ankitj]

There is no point of coming into this thread

[uvelocity]

what will happen first; 100 100's or a DRS controversy?

[GingerFurball]

Someone cock block me from this thread please.

[smalishah84]

your cock is blocked?

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by wellAlbidarned

z

Isn't that more about full balls? I seriously do not think any umpire is practically asked to ASSUME all this.. You always take into account the amount of spin/movement/bounce that is on offer on that particular track and provide for that..

[Flem274*]

He posted the rules ffs. Do you need us to send you an autographed copy as well?

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

Technology sees better than your eyes. There's scientific literature on this iirc. If true, it's the end of the discussion.

To show what happened, yes. To show that technology can predict better than humans considering the factors involved in how a ball moves, I am guessing NO.

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

He posted the rules ffs. Do you need us to send you an autographed copy as well?

I am saying what happens, FFS. Do you really think every umpire simply assumes the ball moves the same way everytime it hits the pads?

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by honestbharani

I am saying what happens, FFS. Do you really think every umpire simply assumes the ball moves the same way everytime it hits the pads?

Read the rules for what they're meant to do.

In answer to your question, I think some do one thing, some do another, some make it up as they go along and the rest have no ****ing clue at all.

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by honestbharani

To show what happened, yes. To show that technology can predict better than humans considering the factors involved in how a ball moves, I am guessing NO.

Do you actually know what UDRS does?

It tracks the ball. Using the real data, it can form a prediction of what the ball will do after it hits the pad. Not that it matters when you refer to the rules outlined before.

And yes it most certainly can. UDRS has hundreds, if not thousands, of data points plotted to know how the ball has already moved, meaning it can plot the rest of the trend reasonably accurately. The human eye gets less than a second to process everything it sees, and no replays.

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

Read the rules for what they're meant to do.

In answer to your question, I think some do one thing, some do another, some make it up as they go along and the rest have no ****ing clue at all.

And I think you gotta allow for all that. Assumption that the ball will continue the same way when it hits the pads in front of the stumps is a huge departure from what the LBW rule originally states about the mode of dismissal: A ball that hits the pads that would have otherwise hit the stumps... Of course there is the pitching criteria and hitting in line criteria but that was the gist of the dismissal..


And I have spoken to one highly regarded international umpire who says it is most difficult to judge the amount of swing and spin on certain tracks.. So he obviously DID consider it and no one from the ICC thought it fit to tell him that the laws don't say that. This is like the chucking law, isn't it? Where it states only about straigthtening the elbow but the ICC then said you could always bowl with a bent arm straightened...

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by honestbharani

And I think you gotta allow for all that.

Allow for them to make their own LBW laws up?

Jesus man...

[morgieb]

God, I wish I had the power to moderate threads I created.