***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[Jarquis]

ffs dude, stop putting words in my mouth. I've already told you before, I wanted the slow motion as a temporary solution until the whole UDRS **** was sorted out. You conveniently ignored the part where I said this debate was redundant when I posted that link as well.

edit: don't mix me up with Cevno btw, we have different stances and arguments about the UDRS

I said why use slow-mos when we could use Hawkeye and then you made some utterly redundant point about how slow-mos are better than the human eye. No **** sherlock. Yet Hawkeye and a fully implemented UDRS is better than both and that's what people should be campaigning for. Not some half assed measure. You're either for UDRS or against it. Not some watered down bull**** compromise.

 

[superkingdave]

Saw this on logging into my yahoo email

Breaking news:

The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Libya's Colonel Gaddafi for crimes against humanity.

Sounds like Gaddafi is against UDRS as well.

 

[vcs]

How does that deal with the ball hitting the pads and rubbing across it though before moving ahead or hitting the pads on a half volley or really close to pitching from the pitch?etc...


And how will the test results show much about how it will perform when dealing with the actual batsman as they will have to take a fixed point of impact in that test which can vary when dealing with a batsman like 2.4 metre outside crease or 1/2 a metre inside crease. Or hitting 5 cm after pitching or hitting 57 cm after pitching.
Also about the Doosra ,how would that test deal with the amount of spin or drift?

Generally the Hawkeye seems to have also a problem of showing higher bounce on really low bouncing wickets.

They can vary the hypothetical points of impact to cover all those cases. Maybe it would even throw up an extra condition for using the technology properly, like the 2.5 m rule.. i.e. Hawkeye might not be able to provide any meaningful data if the ball doesn't travel long enough (let's say 10 cm) after pitching, in which case they stay with the on-field umpire's call.

 

[Jarquis]

Many seem to disagree on Hawkeye being a "Fantastic Alternative " ,imo.

And you are giving it too much importance in any case.
It does not make that much a difference that the system without it is not "moderately less worse" and with it Fantastic.

The UDRS being implemented without it even and with Hotspot,Slow motion and Snickometer largely sorts most decisions,if done properly.

Haha, bull****. I'd wager most decisions referred are LBWs.

I frankly don't care for your stance on Hawkeye. It's more reliable than you when it comes to making decisions and tracking the path of a ball so shove your scepticism elsewhere.

 

[Cevno]

Well,Marcuss really knows how to argue his point well and articulately without aggression.

 

[vcs]

Haha yeah, the Hawkeye > you argument is somewhat annoying TSTL. It may be so, and indeed is likely to be so IMHO, but what's wrong in asking for evidence?

 

[marc71178]

It should be so easy to prove/disprove the accuracy of Hawkeye (the predictive aspect). Like others have pointed out, run 1000 balls from a bowling machine in real-life conditions (you can vary the state of the pitch to include inconsistent bounce, cracks etc.) and see whether Hawkeye's predictions match the ball's actual path. I suspect it will be pretty good, what with being originally developed for military purposes, and all.

And at the same time run the 1000 balls and get a human to do it. Bet I know which will be more accurate.

 

[vcs]

And at the same time run the 1000 balls and get a human to do it. Bet I know which will be more accurate.

You can't get a human to run the exact same test in the exact same conditions because you cannot ask the umpire to simulate a batsman getting his pads in the way without actually having one, whereas it should be easy to do that for the software.

 

[marc71178]

I haven't seen the Warne 2005 one, but I doubt it's controversial to think that the system has been improved since then.

I remember it live, but all that shows is that Warne > technology.

Also, it's slightly inconceivable that the technology hasn't improved in the last 6 years - in fact didn't the makers update their parameters mid World Cup as it was better than they previously thought?

 

[Cevno]

But at the same time it is easier for a human to adapt to a unforeseen circumstance that may occur rather than a Software which isn't programmed to do so.

 

[Cevno]

But that seems to be one of the objections too ,that the makers with the licensing agreement pretty much control everything along with the broadcasters and beyond certain checks can do whatever they like with the parameters etc....

Not fully sure what the terms and conditions are obviously.

 

[Jarquis]

Well,Marcuss really knows how to argue his point well and articulately without aggression.

Meh, if I thought I what I was saying was likely to have an impact I might've been a bit more tactful but the fact is you're spouted the same crap (IMO) opinion with regards to Hawkeye enough times and it's been countered by enough different people that it's not worth it.

So in short, opposing Hawkeye is st00pid.

 

[Bun]

BCCI has agreed according to a couple of news channels now if Hotspot and Snickometer are both made mandatory.

Benchmark to despair and exult, in order.

good un from babucci.

damn bcci.

 

[vcs]

But at the same time it is easier for a human to adapt to a unforeseen circumstance that may occur rather than a Software which isn't programmed to do so.

There really aren't that many unforeseen circumstances TBH. It's just a simple problem of plotting the trajectory of a projectile, based on a estimation of its velocity and position. Given that there are enough data points after the ball pitches, it should not be a problem. As I said, its accuracy should be easy enough to prove, and no doubt they would have run several such tests before releasing it.

However, I would assume a lot depends on the accuracy of the cameras gathering said information, where they are placed, how they are calibrated etc. and maybe there should be a way of running a quick spot test on the ground before each match to ensure it's in working order.

 

[Jarquis]

But at the same time it is easier for a human to adapt to a unforeseen circumstance that may occur rather than a Software which isn't programmed to do so.

Like what?

 

[marc71178]

However, I would assume a lot depends on the accuracy of the cameras gathering said information, where they are placed, how they are calibrated etc. and maybe there should be a way of running a quick spot test on the ground before each match to ensure it's in working order.

I would be gobsmacked if there wasn't already to be honest - would lose all credibility if they didn't!

 

[Bun]

so much for the storm in the tea cup.

 

[morgieb]

If HawkEye's involved, then referrals should still stay at 2 per innings. If not, then I'm happy to restrict it.

 

[Cevno]

There really aren't that many unforeseen circumstances TBH. It's just a simple problem of plotting the trajectory of a projectile, based on a estimation of its velocity and position. Given that there are enough data points after the ball pitches, it should not be a problem. As I said, its accuracy should be easy enough to prove, and no doubt they would have run several such tests before releasing it.

Can't really get into the technical side of the system as frankly i have no idea but quoting posts from another thread -

The makers admit a margin of error and, yes, sometimes it is wrong. We've all seen the balls that've actually clean bowled the batsman and Hawkeye has missing. I've no doubt at all sometimes my eye is better.

But, as we all know, UDRS's use of Hawkeye has quite a high margin of error built into it. It's designed to back up the umpires. Any doubt stays as "umpire's call".

I agree that Hawkeye can be dodgy many times specially with Spin and Bounce where it has even showed a ball on a ankle length bouncing pitch going over the stumps.
No matter what the scientist say ,Hawkeye has shown some weird paths as per human comprehension and even the commentators have agreed.

I agree to it's use to a certain extent but not for marginal calls as i have explained above in this thread too due to this reason.
Until that margin for error is ascertained cleary,i am fine with not using it.

However, I would assume a lot depends on the accuracy of the cameras gathering said information, where they are placed, how they are calibrated etc. and maybe there should be a way of running a quick spot test on the ground before each match to ensure it's in working order.

From another thread -

But that seems to be one of the objections too ,that the makers with the licensing agreement pretty much control everything along with the broadcasters and beyond certain checks can do whatever they like with the parameters etc....

Not fully sure what the terms and conditions are obviously.

 

[silentstriker]

Woke up and saw that at least some UDRS will be mandatory, which is good. Will not include lbws which is stupid. Won't even include hawk eye to show the ball until it hit the batsman (eg without any predictive power), and that makes no sense?