***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[Bun]

that's conjecture.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I don't know much about the VirtualEye version, but I suspect that it's to do with how many cameras they have or where they are, thus reducing the input information and making VE inaccurate past a certain point. If Hawkeye are confident that their system lacks this problem, then they must have more input information.

For a system that depends on inputs from cameras, surely the easiest component to fix is the number of cameras and their positioning? Virtualeye are surely not that broke.

Besides, the article that originally brought up this point mentioned that Hawkeye didn't even have a camera lined up behind the stumps. I can't see why cricinfo would lie or be mistaken about that.

 

[Cevno]

tony greig saying on ten cricket that virtual eye actually has better cameras to show everything except predictive path.Arun lal agreeing with my view.

 

[vcs]

tony greig saying on ten cricket that virtual eye actually has better cameras to show everything except predictive path.Arun lal agreeing with my view.

Wouldn't be admitting to that if I were you, mate!

 

[Cevno]

Was talking mostly sense.Actually agreed with you too on the batsman getting benefit doubt ,except on accuracy

 

[Borges]

I'm seriously interested in an answer by someone who actually knows about this stuff.

Maybe you should be posing thing question elsewhere; not on Cricket Web? Every opinion here - for or against - is based on blind faith, not knowledge.

The ICC has said it would ask 'experts' to examine the accuracy of predictive technology; hopefully those experts would be people who actually know something about all this stuff. So why not just wait for the results of the study by independent experts?

 

[Jarquis]

For a system that depends on inputs from cameras, surely the easiest component to fix is the number of cameras and their positioning? Virtualeye are surely not that broke.

Besides, the article that originally brought up this point mentioned that Hawkeye didn't even have a camera lined up behind the stumps. I can't see why cricinfo would lie or be mistaken about that.

They don't. They have 6 cameras at mid-on and mid-off from both ends plus 2 square of the wicket. They use the 2 broadcast cameras for information from behind the stumps afaik.

 

[Top_Cat]

With Hot Spot being made mandatory, cue members of the BCCI to complain vigorously when the inevitable 'obvious nick which didn't leave a heat signature' appeal pops up and the guy tons up followed by "We never liked URDS in the first place, felt pressured to accept it, IT COSTS $60k PER MINUTE!!!", etc..

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'm seriously interested in an answer by someone who actually knows about this stuff.

I don't really understand the whole point. Virtualeye was used throughout the Ashes as the tool for determining LBWs. I actually thought it was a lot better than Hawkeye, as it used more frames per second, so it seemed to provide more accuracy.

 

[Furball]

How about commentators disagreeing too on the ground and players feeling surprised too?
In any way this wasn't about Hawkeye.



Here we need to understand that only LBW calls are done by the Hawkeye not others.
And ultimately in any system it's the third umpires call.

So what is wrong with just using part of the system just with slow motion for the time being? It's not as if even if the UDRS is fully implemented you'll get robots to decide whether the evidence is conclusive to overturn or not?

People are 'suprised' by what HawkEye throws up because their perceptions have been wrong for years.

I'm amazed at the number of times commentators have said a ball was going to be sliding down leg side when it patently isn't.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think that hotspot is the most unreliable of all the technologies - it's used as definitive proof but I don't think that it does do all that great a job of detecting thin edges. Yet it's the one being adopted uniformly. Oh well.

Can individual boards agree to use hawkeye? Lets say Lithuania and Western Samoa both like to use hawkeye, can it be used? Or just the system that has been approved by the ICC?

Also, these are all still recommendations, aren't they? To be approved by some other ICC committee, yeah?

 

[Top_Cat]

I think that hotspot is the most unreliable of all the technologies - it's used as definitive proof but I don't think that it does do all that great a job of detecting thin edges.

Yep. I've said it many times before but the cameras they're using are uncooled IR cams. Cheaper (not cheap), relatively low-res, fine for picking up the heat signature of an exhaust or bomb-makers in a tent somewhere but for fine edges, not so much. And, as inferred by the 'uncooled' bit, affected by ambient temperature, likely making it that much harder to pick up already fine edges on hotter days.

Also, these are all still recommendations, aren't they? To be approved by some other ICC committee, yeah?

Just recommendations to be ratified at the next ICC meeting. The runner thing, though. is a non-issue, tbh. Have little doubt it won't get up.

 

[centurymaker]

Can individual boards agree to use hawkeye? Lets say Lithuania and Western Samoa both like to use hawkeye, can it be used? Or just the system that has been approved by the ICC?

Yea ofcourse.

 

[Furball]

What baffles me is that we're arguing over perceived inaccuracies with HawkEye, yet there's been absolutely no comment or discussion about HotSpot despite it being conclusively proven to be useless at detecting faint edges.

HotSpot's a useful.gimmick, but it's nowhere near as useful or as good as HawkEye. That the more reliable technology is being dissected in a bizarre attempt to find faults in it whilst a flawed technology has been accepted without question astounds me.

 

[Jacknife]

What baffles me is that we're arguing over perceived inaccuracies with HawkEye, yet there's been absolutely no comment or discussion about HotSpot despite it being conclusively proven to be useless at detecting faint edges.

HotSpot's a useful.gimmick, but it's nowhere near as useful or as good as HawkEye. That the more reliable technology is being dissected in a bizarre attempt to find faults in it whilst a flawed technology has been accepted without question astounds me.

Completely agree, I think Hawkeye is a very useful tool and has basically changed the way umpires give decisions. As well as it's primary job, of predictive ball tracking, it's helped umpires become more accurate over the years and for all this so called, 'it's not accurate enough' rubbish, I've never had any issues with it.
Whereas Hotspot can and has proved to be a very good at revealing edges, it does often throw up the odd edge, that doesn't show up and out of the 2 pieces of equipment Hawkeye appears to be, a fair bit more consistent and accurate.

 

[Bun]

Disregarding the fact that we are comparing apples to oranges, I am confounded by the reasoning of some guys who're making up things out of thin air.

Hotspot as it is, imho, is a good tool. Combined with snickometer I think it's a very good tool to have as part of UDRS. what's more important here is that there is zero percent speculation here. No projections, no what ifs.

Again, reiterating I've absolutely no issues with HawkEye's utility to gauge pitching and interception. But their predictive tool, for reasons already enumerated, have not exactly been proven to be a value addition to the existing set up.

 

[Bun]

With Hot Spot being made mandatory, cue members of the BCCI to complain vigorously when the inevitable 'obvious nick which didn't leave a heat signature' appeal pops up and the guy tons up followed by "We never liked URDS in the first place, felt pressured to accept it, IT COSTS $60k PER MINUTE!!!", etc..

yeah because bcci has been the only board to moan about the udrs.


damn if you, damn if you don't

 

[Top_Cat]

Err, who else has pissed and moaned to the levels that the BCCI have? Some players and ex-players have complained but the official responses from boards have been largely in the affirmative, even in the face of the Kemar Roach decision a couple of years ago in Perth.

 

[Bun]

andy flower, for example. point is that bcci has come around. bit unwieldy to speculate on their reaction to something which has less probable chance to happen in future. might as well speculate about their reaction to end of days and the second coming as well.

 

[Top_Cat]

Was being sarcastic, tbh. I'm sure they won't say a word.